
flass Pft^q^^' 



Book. 



3^.T.'r 






THE INFLUENCE OF BEAUMONT 
AND FLETCHER ON SHAKSPERE 



ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE, Ph. D. 

Associate Professor of English, Western Reserve University 



WORCBSTBR, MASSACHUSETTS. 

Press of Oliver B. Wood 

190 1 



3^ ' 



I 
3 

EC 

tii 



PREFACE 



This volume is based on a portion of a dissertation on "Some Con- 
temporary Influences on Shakspere," which was presented to the 
Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University to fulfill a require- 
ment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. That dissertation dealt 
with the relations of As You Like It to pastoral and Robin Hood 
plays, and of Hamlet to tragedies of revenge, as well as with the influ- 
ence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere's romances. This last 
division has been rewritten and considerably enlarged and forms this 
volume. My conclusions in regard to the indebtedness of the romances 
to the contemporary drama are thus offered without the support which 
might perhaps have been afforded by the co-ordinate investigations. 

A study, however, of Shakspere as an adapter requires less apology 
now than it would have four years ago when I first began this work. 
Shaksperean criticism has made a decided advance since then toward 
the adoption of the point of view and methods of historical criticism. 
Mr. Sidney Lee's discussion of the sonnets as a representative of a 
current literary form has opened the field and pointed the way for 
future students of the plays. My incentive to a historical study came 
entirely from the lectures of Professor Barrett Wendell at Harvard 
University and from his suggestive study, William Shakspere. While 
the hypothesis in regard to the influence of Beaumont and Fletcher 
with which I began my work was the immediate result of my reading 
and, so far as I know, has never been advanced before, whatever 
merit there may be in the general method and point of view of this 
essay is due to the instruction and example of Mr. Wendell. I 
venture to hope that, however my conclusions may be estimated, the 
investigation on which they are based will be of some interest in 
illustrating the application of the historical method to the study of 
Shakspere. 

In condensing the results of my work for publication, it has been 
necessary to omit some investigations not closely connected with the 
main thesis and merely to note the results of others. Among these 



are a discussion of the Revels companies, 1601-1611, additional notes 
on the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher after 161 1, an alphabetical list 
of plays acted 1601-1611, some tables illustrating the use of colloquial- 
isms, of 'em and them, and various verse tests. 

Like every other student in the history of the drama, I owe much 
to the books of Mr. Fleay. I have found many occasions to differ 
with him and to criticise his methods, but I have also had abundant 
opportunity to admire his extensive knowledge and brilliant induc- 
tions. My indebtedness to Mr. Wendell's book on Shakspere is 
apparent; in expressing my thanks I wish I could also indicate the 
extent of my obligations to his friendly and stimulating criticisms and 
suggestions made while my investigation was in progress. I am also 
greatly indebted for helpful criticism to Professor George L. Kitt- 
redge, to whom I have frequently turned for suggestion and guidance, 
and to Mr. Jefferson B. Fletcher, and Professor George P. Baker. 

ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE. 

Western Reserve University, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER. 



PAGE. 



I. Introduction ^ 

II. Introduction to Chronology and Stage History, 9 

A. Biographies. 

B. Connection with Theatrical Companies. 

C. The Plague and the Closing of the Theaters. 

D. The Occupancy of Blackfriars. 
B. The Revels Companies. 

F. Shakspere and Beaumont and Fletcher, writing 

for the King's men. 

G. The Evidence of folios, quartos, and verse tests. 
H. The "em-them" test. 

I. Court Masques and Chronology. 

III. CHRONO1.0GY OF Shaksperk's Romances . . 3° 

IV. Chronoi^ogy and Discussion of Henry VIII and 

THE Two Noble Kinsmen 35 

V. Chronology of the Plays of Beaumont and 

Fletcher • • 57 

VI. The Drama, 1601-1611 96 

^ VII. General Characteristics of the Romances of 

Beaumont and Fletcher 109 

VIII. General Characteristics of Shakspere's Ro- 
mances 133 

IX. Cymbeline and Philaster 152 

X. A Winter's Tale and The Tempest .... 161 

XI. Conclusion 167 

Appendix. Pericles 171 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE. 



Texts. 
Shakspere's plays. "Globe Edition." W. G. Clark and W, A. 

Wright. All line references are to this edition. 
"The Two Noble Kinsmen." Ed. by Harold Littledale. New 

Shakspere Society. Series II. 7, 8. 15. London, 1885. 
Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. "Works." Ed. by Rev. Alexan- 
der Dyce. II vols. London, 1843. Page references are to this 

edition. 
" Works." Ed. by George Darley. Routledge's " Series of the Old 

Dramatists." 2 vols. This edition is used when there is no 

reference to Dyce. 
Critical Works, Etc. 
The following list includes only those books or articles which are 

repeatedly referred to and often in abbreviated form. Where 

the abbreviations are not evident thej' are given in this list. 

Other books referred to are named in full in the foot notes. 
A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 155^-1642. . F. G. 

Fleay. 2 vols. London, 1891. Referred to as Or. When no 

page number is given, the reference is invariably to the play 

under discussion and can be found without difficulty. 
A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 155^-1642. F. G. Fleay. 

London, 1890. H. of S. 
A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare. 

F. G. Fleay. London, 1886. 
Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare. J. O. Halliwell Phillipps. 

Sixth Edition. London, 1886. H. P. Outlines. 
A Life of William Shakespeare. Sidney Lee. London and New 

York, 1899. 
A History of Eftglish Dramatic Literature. A. W. Ward. 3 vols. 

New and revised edition. London, 1899. 
History of English Dramatic Poetry to the time of Shakespeare, and 

Annals of the Stage. J. Payne Collier. 3 vols. London, 1874. 

Abbreviated, Collier. 
A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. H. H. Furness. Phila- 
delphia. The Tempest. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE. VH 

The Diary of Philip Henslowe from i^gj to i6og. J. Payne Collier. 
I/Ondon. For the Shakespeare Society, 1845. ^- ^■ 

Annates or a Generatl Chronicte of England. Begun by John Stow. 
Continued to 1631 by Edmund Howes. London, 1631. Stow. 

The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. New 
edition in 3 vols. John Nichols. Loudon, 1823. 

The Progresses, Processions of King fames the First, etc. 

John Nichols. 4 vols. London,' 1828. 

Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court. P. Cunning- 
ham. For the Shakespeare Society. Loudon, 1842. 

William Shakspere. A Study in Elizabethan Literature. Bar- 
rett Wendell. New York, 1894. 

Quellen Studien zu den drama Ben fonson's, fohn Marston's und 
Beaumont und Fletcher's. Miinchener Beitrage VI. E. Koeppel. 
Erlangen und Leipzig. 1895. 

Die Englischen Maskenspiele. Alfred Soergel. Halle, 1882. 

Francis Beaumont. A Critical Study. G. C. Macaulay, London, 
1883. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introduction. 

In considering the question of Shakspere's indebtedness to 
two of his contemporaries, we can have no better starting point 
than the earhest known reference to Shakspere as a dramatist, 
a passage written by a contemporary play-wright, Robert 
Greene. 

' ' For there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, 
that with his Tyger's heart wrapt in a Player's hide, supposes 
that he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as is the 
best of you: and being an obsohxtQ. Johannes fac totuni, is in his 
owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie. ' ' ^ 

Although no one believes that in our sense of the word Shak- 
spere was a plagiarist, Greene's accusation contains an element 
of truth worth keeping in mind. 

There is no doubt that Shakspere began play-writing by 
imitating or re-vamping the work of others. Titus Andro?iicus 
and Henry VI, so far as they are his, are certainly imitative 
of other plays of the time, while Richard II and Richard III 
show the influence of Marlowe's tragedies, and Love' s Labour' s 
Lost, the influence of Lyly's comedies. During the period 
that he was learning his art and experimenting with various 
kinds of plays, it is generally recognized that he was indebted 
to the dramatists and the dramatic conventions of his time. 

After this early experimental period, however, his indebted- 
ness to his contemporaries has received little notice. In fact, 
the idea that Shakspere in his maturity imitated, adapted, or 
to any considerable extent made use of the work of his fellow 
dramatists, has to most students seemed absurd. His plays 
are so immensely superior to those of his contemporaries that, 
when resemblances have been noticed, critics have been wont 
to say: 'Shakspere must have originated this and the other 
man copied it. ' There is a fallacy here which we must avoid ; 
for the mere fact that Shakspere's work is the better by no 
means proves that it is the original, and in general we may 
well question if his superiority so much disproves as conceals 
his indebtedness to his contemporaries. 

Whatever he touched, he transformed into a permanent work 
of art; but it is no less true that in his work of transformation 

1 Greene's Groatsworth of Wit. 1592. 



or creation he was working under the same conditions as his 
fellow play-wrights. He was an actor, and a theater-owner, 
conversant with all the conventions of an Elizabethan theater 
and practically interested in the stage fashions and stage rival- 
ries of his time. He made plays that paid, situations that held 
the interest of the audiences, characters that were effective in 
London theaters. He must have understood and been influ- 
enced by the stage demand whose varying wants he and his 
fellow dramatists were engaged in supplying. As in the case 
of any other Elizabethan dramatist, we may be reasonably sure 
that the final character of his work must have been partly de- 
termined by definite objective causes. Moreover, since he 
sometimes wrote in co-operation with and, doubtless still oftener, 
in competition with other dramatists, and since many of these 
were writers of great originality, it is almost inconceivable 
that his work was not directly influenced by theirs. 

Still further, there is much clear evidence of his use of con- 
temporary conventions and dramatic forms. It will be remem- 
bered, for example, that he continued to write chronicle-histories 
even after that form had been ridiculed as antiquated and that 
Hamlet and Lear contain traces of the "tragedy of blood" 
type. A closer adherence to current forms can be seen in the 
relation between the Mcrcharit of Venice and \\v& Jew of Malta 
or in the many points of similarity between Hamlet and the 
other Elizabethan tragedies dealing with the theme of blood- 
revenge. Characters, too, are often clearly developments of 
types familiar on the stage; as, for example, lago is a develop- 
ment of the conventional stage villian. Such facts as these 
have been frequently noticed and commented upon, but even 
they have not led to any careful investigation of Shakspere's 
indebtedness to his contemporaries. 

Such investigation finds encouragement not only in Shak- 
spere's relation as a play-wright to his fellow play-wrights, 
but also in the almost invariable law of art forms that the 
developer excels the innovator. We know that no one wrote 
any English dramas until a long period of miracle and morality 
plays had prepared the w^ay. We know that we can trace the 
rise and development of a number of dramatic forms in the 
thirty years preceding Shakspere's first masterly work. We 
know that the Elizabethan literature in general and the history 
of its drama in particular were characterized by experiment, 
invention, and discovery. In the history of dramatic art, then, 
in a period characterized by an abundance of new forms, it is 
only natural to expect that the genius who brought many of 
these to their highest perfection should not have been so much 
an innovator as an adapter. We may naturally expect that 
Shakspere's transcendent plays owe a considerable debt to the 
less perfect but not less original efforts of his contemporaries. 



In this investigation I have undertaken to study some of 
Shakspere's plays in connection with the conventions and 
fashions of the EHzabethan theater. I have also undertaken 
the study of these plays in connection with similar plays by 
his contemporaries. I have by no means exhausted the field 
of possible contemporary influences. Any one play, I believe, 
shows almost countless effects of preceding plays; and only the 
most exhaustive study of Shakspere's work could treat ade- 
quately of his total indebtedness. Aiming at definiteness rather 
than completeness, I have merely considered the influence 
on Shakspere of one current and popular dramatic form. I 
have taken as a point of departure some of the plays of Beau- 
mont and Fletcher and studied their possible influence on 
Cymbeline, the Tempest, and the Winter' s Tale. 

Beaumont and Fletcher began to write plays toward the end 
of Shakspere's dramatic career; and by the time of his with- 
drawal from the stage, they were probably the most popular 
play- Wrights of the day. The popularity of their plays seems, 
indeed, to have been established almost at the start and to have 
continued well into the eighteenth century. Nor was their 
literary pre-eminence less readily recognized; their work was 
thought worthy of being classed with Shakspere's by poets 
and critics from Webster to Dryden, Even in the opinion of 
critics to-day, two or three of their masterpieces, the Maid's 
Tragedy in particular, can well contest with any other Eliza- 
bethan tragedies for the rank next to Shakspere's. Moreover, 
even from our modern point of view, it is easy to find qualities 
in many of their plays, such as their variety of situations and 
their surprising climaxes, which made them better acting plays, 
greater stage successes even than Shakspere's. 
J Our main interest in Beaumont and Fletcher's work to-day 
is, however, probably an historical one. Their work marks a 
new development in the Elizabethan drama, and their influence 
is seen in nearly all the dramatists from 1610 to 1640, to say 
nothing of those of the Restoration. A few of the well known 
facts of their lives will at once suggest some of the marked 
distinctions which separated them from the earlier dramatists. 

In the first place, Beaumont and Fletcher were gentlemen of 
birth and breeding; they numbered, as we learn from dedica- 
tions and commendatory verses, many friends among the gentle- 
men and noblemen of the day; they had little in common with 
the Bohemian actor-play-wrights of Elizabeth's reign. They 
have, indeed, been accused by Coleridge of being " servile jtire 
divino royalists. ' ' Their political opinions are not so much in 
evidence as this accusation would indicate, but the tone of their 
work is decidedly the tone of the fashionable world. 

In the second place, as became friends of Jonson, they began 
writing with considerable notion of the rules and requirements 



of dramatic art. This is, perhaps, best illustrated by a few 
lines from Beaumont's verses on Jonson's Volpone} 

"I would have shown 
" To all the world, the art, which thou alone, 
" Hast taught our tongue, the rules of time, of place, 
" And other rites, delivered with the grace 
"Of comic style, which only, is far more 
" Than any English stage hath known before." 

Fletcher, too, in the address to the reader prefixed to the 
Faithful Shepherdess, shows a similar critical knowledge of the 
rules of his art. Many of their plays, also, satirize the faults 
of the contemporary drama, and the Knight of the Biiming 
Pestle abounds in ridicule of the absurdities of the popular 
plays of the day. They placed themselves, then, in opposition 
to the vulgar taste of the time, and were conscious of the 
demands of a refined taste and a requiring art. 

Nevertheless, there is by no means an absolute disconnection 
between their plays and the plays of the preceding half-century. 
Although we shall have occasion to dwell on the novelty of 
their plays, they are, of course, far from being new. Possibly, 
there is scarcely a situation or a character which might not be 
traced back to an early original; certainly, there is no play 
which separates itself entirely from relation.ship with its Eliza- 
bethan predecessors. Indeed one needs to make but a cursory 
study of the Elizabethan drama to convince oneself that this 
is true of all plays as late as 1600. The continuity of theatrical 
tradition is rarely broken. The girl in doublet and hose, the 
deep-dyed villain, the braggart coward, the faithful friend, can 
all be traced at least as far back as the earliest days of the 
drama. A situation or a plot once successful was sure to 
be copied and varied and developed. However much the 
Elizabethan dramatists studied and pictured human life, they 
also kept closely in touch with theatrical conventions. 

A single example may be permitted to illustrate these ob- 
servations. In 1566, a play, Palafnon and Arcyte, was per- 
formed before Queen Elizabeth at Oxford; and among other 
things concerning it, we learn from Wood's Ms.'^ ' ' There was 
a good part performed by the the Lady Amelia, who for gather- 
ing her flowers prettily in a garden there represented and sing- 
ing sweetly in the time of March, received eight angels for her 
gracious reward by her Majesty's command. ' ' There, perhaps, 
was the germ of a situation used over and over again in later 
plays and adapted by Shakspere into the scene in which Per- 
dita distributes her flowers in the Wi?iter's Tale. 

Beaumont and Fletcher, like Shakspere and all other Eliza- 

i4to, 1607, acted 1605. 

^Nichols' Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, I. 



bethan dramatists, took their material where they could find 
It, and availed themselves of whatever had found favor on the 
stage. There can be no doubt, however, that their plays 
seemed very dififerent to the spectators of their day from any 
which preceded. This is true of their comedies, with which 
as a class we shall have little to do, and it is still more true of 
their tragi-comedies and tragedies which I shall include by 
the term romances. ^ In the period 1600-1615 there are cer- 
tainly few plays by other authors that resemble these romances 
They are nothing like the revenge plays which were pre- 
Zf l\,^\ ^^^ beginning of the period, nor the "tragedies of 
blood of Webster and Tourneur, nor Chapman's Bnssv d'Am- 
bois and Byro7i, nor the classical tragedies of Jonson and Shak- 
spere. Neither are they like Macbeth, Othello, or Lear, trage- 
dies which deal with one main emotion and center about one 
character. If they differ from the plays which immediately 
preceded or were contemporary with them, they differ still 
more from the earlier chronicle-histories or tragedies Beau- 
mont and Fletcher, in fact, created a new dramatic form the 
heroic romance. I shall later endeavor to establish this asser- 
tion by showing how their romances differ from all other plays of 
the time and how closely they themselves adhere to a definite 
type For the present, we may well enough rest on a statement 
which no one will deny, that their romances were distinguished 
by much that was new in situations, plots, characters, and 
poetic style. 

The production of such a series of plays within a few years 
ol each other must certainly have influenced contemporary 
play-wnting. And our knowledge of Shakspere surely justi- 
lies us in suspecting that no dramatist was more ready than he 
to make use of whatever was popular and suited to his pur- 
pose on the stage. 

It becomes a significant fact, then, that at just about the 
T^^^j^^"^°"^ ^"^ Fletcher's romances appeared, Shakspere 
who had for a number of years been chiefly engaged on his 
tragedies, began writing a series of plays differing from anv 
he had previously written and perhaps, also, best designated 
as romances. The common name ' romance ' indicates a real 
resemblance. We saw a moment ago that Beaumont and 
Fletcher s romances differed markedly from almost all the nota- 
ble tragic plays of their period; they have, however, at least 
a class resemblance to Cymbcline, the Winter's Tale, and the 
lempest. Especial prominence given to a sentimental love- 
story, a rapid succession of tragic situations, a happy ending 
are examples of resemblan ces which must occur to everyone.' 

Thl^f''^} ''^^P'B?^' ^^ '■ Phil'^'te^^ Four Plays in One, Thierry and 
T-agely ' "^'^ ' Revenge, A King and No King] The Maid's 



Critics have, in fact, specifically noted the similarities between 
Philaster and Cyvibelme^. 

Moreover, there is an abrupt change from Shakspere's pre- 
vious work to his romances. Sometime between 1601 and 
1608 he wrote the series of tragedies from Ha?nlet to A7itony 
and Cleopatra; sometime between 1608 and 161 2, he wrote 
Cyinbclme, the Whiter' s Tale, and the Tc?}ipest. There were 
other plays probably during these two periods — Troihis a7id 
Cressida, Measure for Measure, Pericles, Timon — but some of 
these are not wholly Shakspere's, and all are of more doubtful 
date. They perhaps indicate periods of weakness in creative 
power, of searching after new forms, ^ but they cannot be 
classified under either of the groups above — the great tragedies 
or the romances. These two groups are absolutely distinct; 
they differ enormously in general effect. Still further, this 
transition from the tragedies to the romances was accomplished 
in one or two years at mo.st; for the student of Shakspere's 
art, therefore, the hiatus has not been an easy one to bridge. 

The only explanation that I know to have been off"ered, is 
that of a subjective change in Shakspere. It is stated that he 
passed out of a period of life, gloomy, passionate, full of suffer- 
ing, into one of philosophic calm, renewed optimism, and final 
reconciliation: or as Mr. Dowden puts it, he passed "out of 
the depths" and rested "on the heights." It would be stupid 
to deny the possibility of such a change. No one imagines 
that Shakspere's mind was the same when he was writing 
Hamlet as when he was writing the Tempest; and what actual 
personal circumstances may have accompanied these varying 
creative moods is certainly open to conjecture without any 
possibility of disproof. Such subjective explanations, how- 
ever, are at best only attempts to interpret the author's moods 
in terms of the aesthetic effect his work exerts upon us: and 
they give us few clues as to the actual methods of his creative 
art. We are on far safer grounds when we study objec- 
tive influences; and a mere re-insistance on our point of view 
— the study of Shakspere as an Elizabethan dramatist — must 
lead to the conclusion that no decided change in the character 
of his plays would have been likely to take place without some 
objective cause. 

Such a cause for his change from the tragedies to the 
romances I find in the production at about the same time of a 
series of romances by Beaumont and Fletcher. I think, also, 
that Shakspere's romances show definite evidences of the influ- 
ence of Beaumont and Fletcher. In order to establish any 
probability for these opinions, there is necessary ( i ) an examina- 
tion of the dates of Shakspere's and of Beaumont and Fletcher's 

1 See B. Leouhardt. Anglia 8. 

"^ See William Shakspere by Barrett Wendell, p. 334. 



romances in order to determine if the latter preceded, and (2) 
an examination of such of Beaumont and Fletcher's romances 
as date early enough in order to discover their distinguishing 
characteristics, and a like examination of Shakspere's three 
romances in search of indications of Beaumont and Fletcher's 
influence. 

In addition to these two principal investigations there are 
some minor ones involved by them. The rather general opin- 
ion that both Shakspere and Fletcher are concerned in the 
authorship of //i^wrj/ VI/I and the Two Noble Kinsmen, is im- 
portant in its bearing on the investigation of Fletcher's influ- 
ence on Shakspere. We shall consider, therefore, the dates, 
the authorship and the possible collaboration in these plays. 
Their discussion, together with that of the lost Cardenio, also 
attributed to Fletcher and Shakspere, will be included for con- 
venience in the first main division of the investigation, that of 
the chronology of the plays. Pericles is often spoken of as a 
precursor of Shakspere's romances and must therefore receive 
at least brief consideration. This will be postponed to the 
appendix. 

Inasmuch as in investigating the chronology of the Beau- 
mont-Fletcher plays I shall take Mr. Fleay's conclusions as a 
basis, some of his theories must first be considered, and with 
them some matters of the stage history of the period and some 
general methods used in the subsequent investigation. As 
this introduction to the Beaumont-Fletcher chronology also, 
in some details, afiects the Shakspere chronology, it will 
precede the latter as well as the former. 

An examination of the plays acted in the eight or ten years 
preceding the romances will also be necessary in order to deter- 
mine to what extent they were innovations on contemporary 
practice. 

In discussing the characteristics of the romances of Beau- 
mont and Fletcher and their influence on Shakspere's we 
should naturally expect to find in Cymbeline, probably the 
earliest of the latter, more distinct traces of the influence of 
Beaumont and Fletcher than in the Winter's Tale and the 
Tempest ; for in these later plays Shakspere, once accustomed 
to the new style of drama, would more completely transform 
it. I shall, therefore, consider separately the influence of 
Philaster on Cymbeline, and in still another chapter discuss 
the Winter* s Tale and the Tempest. 

My investigation, therefore, will be presented in the follow- 
ing somewhat arbitrary order. 

(I.) 
I . Introduction to the chronology of the plays of Beaumont 
and Fletcher and the stage history of 1605-16 15. 



2. Chronology of Shakspere's three romances. 

3. Chronology and discussion of Henry VIII, the Two Noble 
Kinsmen, and Cardenio. 

4. Chronology of the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

(II.) 

5. The drama 1601-1610. 

6. General characteristics of the romances of Beaumont 
and Fletcher, 

7. General characteristics of Shakspere's romances, 

8. Cymbeline and Philaster. 

9. A Winter' s Tale and the Tempest. 
10. (Appendix). Pericles. 

In spite of the somewhat wide latitude of the investigation, 
its two main objects must not be lost sight of: (i) to show that 
so far as dates and facts of stage history are concerned, it is 
entirely possible that the Beaumont- Fletcher romances may 
have influenced Shakspere, and (2) to show a probability that 
they did definitely influence his romances. 



CHAPTER II. 

Introduction to Chronology and Stage History. 

Before attempting to fix the dates of the plays of Beaumont 
and Fletcher, it is necessary to understand the few facts known 
of their lives and reputations as dramatists and to discuss a 
few important features of the stage historj'- of the time. In 
discussing the separate plays, I shall take as a basis the con- 
clusions of Mr. Fleay in his Chronicle of the English Drama; 
and these conclusions rest so often on his special theories in 
regard to the general stage history that, in order even to under- 
stand his dates for the plays, those theories must be carefully 
examined. 

A . Biograph ies . 

Francis Beaumont, third son of Judge Beaumont of Grace 
Dieu in Leicestershire, was born about 1585 and died March 
6, 1 6 16. He was admitted gentleman commoner at Broadgates 
Hall, Oxford, in 1597, and was entered at the Inner Temple, 
lyondon, Nov. 3, 1600. Salamis ^m^ Hermaphrodite , 1602, may 
possibly have been written by him. He w^as married, possibly 
about 1613,^ and left two daughters (one, a posthumous child). 
He was buried in Westminster Abbey. 

John Fletcher, son of Richard Fletcher, Bishop of Bristol, 
was baptized at Rye in Sussex, where his father was then 
minister, Dec. 20, 1579, and died of the plague Aug. 25, 1625, 
He was entered as a pensioner at Bene't College, Cambridge, 

1591- 

It is not known just when Fletcher came to London or when 
he began writing plays or when he first became acquainted with 
Beaumont. Davenant in a prologue to the Woman Hater at a 
revival, evidently alluding to Fletcher, declares that ''full 
twenty years he wore the bays: " this would place the begin- 
ning of his play-writing 1604-5. In 1607, both he and Beau- 
mont prefixed verses to Volpone (acted 1605.) Beaumont ad- 
dresses Jonson as " my dear friend," praises him for teaching 
' ' our tongue the rules of time, of place, ' ' and shows a character- 
istic scorn of the audiences of the day. Fletcher also classes 
himself among Jonson' s friends and speaks of the latter' s foes. 
In 1607, then, they were well acquainted with Jonson and 

1 Fleay: Chr. I, p. 170. 



probably with each other. Beaumont wrote commendatory- 
verse for Epiccene (1609) and both Beaumont and Fletcher for 
Catiliiie (1611). Beaumont also wrote commendatory verses, 
together with Jonson, Chapman, and Field for Fletcher's Faith- 
ful Shepherdess (4to 1609?) The Womaji Hater, probably by 
Beaumont alone, was published anonymously, 1607. Beau- 
mont's oft-quoted epistle to Jonson, is entitled in the 1679 folio, 
" written before he and Master Fletcher came to London with 
two of the precedent comedies, then not finished, which de- 
ferred their merry meetings at the Mermaid. ' ' ^ The reference 
in the letter to Sutcliffe's wit seems to refer to the pamphlets 
produced by him in 1606.'^ In 1610, Davies' Scourge of Folly 
was published, containing an epigram on Philaster. In 161 2, 
in the address to the reader, prefixed to the White Devil,^ 
Webster praises " the no less worthy composures of the both 
worthily excellent Master Beaumont and Master Fletcher," 
ranking them on equal terms with such scholars and ex- 
perienced dramatists as Chapman and Jonson, and apparently 
above Shakspere, Dekker, and Heywood. Before 1612, then, 
the reputation of Beaumont and Fletcher as dramatists must 
have been well established. 

Beaumont, in addition to his plays, wrote elegies on the Lady 
Markham who died in 1609, the Countess of Rutland who died 
in 1 61 2, and Lady Penelope Clifton who died in 161 3. He also 
addressed some verses to the Countess of Rutland, and in 161 3 
wrote a masque for Lady Elizabeth's marriage, which was per- 
formed with great splendor by the gentlemen of the Inner 
Temple and Gray's Inn. We shall find no direct evidence that 
he wrote anything for the stage during the last four years of 
his life. At the same time there is no positive reason to believe 
that he stopped pla}'-writing so long before his death. 

Beaumont was buried in Westminster Abbey close by Chaucer 
and Spenser; and the verses on Shakspere, usually attributed 
to William Basse, bid 

" Renowned Spencer lye a thought more nye 
To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lye 
A little nearer Spenser, to make roome 
For Shakespeare in your threefold, fowerfold Tombe. 
To lodge all fowre in one bed make a shift 
Until Doomesdaye, for hardly will a fift 
Betwixt this day and that by Fate be slayne. 
For whom your curtaines may be drawn againe." 

There is no doubt, indeed, that Beaumont's reputation as a 
poet was very high even before his death. The commendatory 

^Whether there is any evidence for the connection between the 
epistle and " two of the precedent comedies " is a matter of conjecture. 
'-C/., Chr. I p. 170. 
'^ Acted before 1612, perhaps 1607-8 (Fleay). 

10 



verses prefixed to the Beaumont and Fletcher folio of 1647 
show that then they were probably the most popular of the 
Elizabethan dramatists. How high their literary reputation 
was, can be seen from the fact that either during their lives or 
after their deaths, their praises were heralded by Jonson, Chap- 
man, Webster, Waller, Denham, Lovelace, Cartwright, Her- 
rick, Brome, and Shirley. Perhaps no other poet of the Eliza- 
bethan period — certainly not Shakspere — received such a volume 
of praise. 

B. Con?iedio?is with Theatrical Companies. 

We have next to examine some of Mr. Fleay's theories, and 
from the examination arrive at some important facts of the 
stage history. We may first consider Beaumont and Fletcher's 
connections with the theatrical companies. 

Some of the Elizabethan playwrights were actors and wrote 
for the companies in which they acted; some were hackwriters 
whose services were engaged for certain periods by certain 
companies. Some, like Shakspere, wrote for one company 
throughout their career; some changed back and forth at fairly 
traceable intervals from one company to another. Beaumont 
and Fletcher were neither actors, nor managers, nor hack- 
writers; they were gentlemen and poets. They were probably 
no more closely attached at any one time to any one company 
than a dramatist of to-day would be bound to one manager, or 
a novelist to one publisher. Not only is there no evidence that 
their services were subsidized for definite periods by particular 
companies; on the contrary there is clear evidence that they 
belonged to the class of writers who were independent of all 
such theatrical engagements. 

That there was such a class of dramatists may be clearly 
seen from a cursory examination of Ben Jonson 's dramatic 
career. The following list shows his career up to 1616,^ giving 
date, play, company, and theater. 

1597, Dec. 3. 

1598, Aug. 19. 

1598. I 
(before 1599.) \ 
1598. 
1599- 

1599. 
Aug. 10, Sep. 2. 

1599, Sep. 
1600. 
1601, 

1601. (?) Fleay. 
i5oi-2, 

Sep. 25, June 24. 

1602, June 24. 

*With collaborators. 

t Also acted b3' another company; Fleay thinks before 1603 by Chapel Children. 

^The dates can be verified by Henslow's diary and Jonson's 1616 
folio. 



Henslow, "a book." 
Hot A nger soon Cold* 


Henslow, Admirals. 


Rose. 


The Case is Altered. 


Chapel Children. 




Every Man in his Humour. 
Every Man out of his Humour. 


Lord Chamberlain's. t 
Lord Chamberlain's. 


Curtain. 
Globe. 


Page of Plymouth. 


Henslow, Admiral's. 


Rose. 


Robert IT, King of Scots.* 
Cynthia's Revels. 
The Poetaster. 
Tale of a Tub. 


Henslow, Admiral's. 
Chapel Children. 
Chapel Children. 
Chapel Children. (?) 


Rose. 

Blackfriars 

Blackfriars 


The Spanish Tragedy, Additions 


:. Henslow, Admiral's. 


Fortune. 


Richard Crookback. 


Henslow, Admiral's. 


Fortune. 



i603. 


Sejanus. 


1604-5. 


Eastward Ho* 


1605. 


Volpone. 


1609. 


Epuoene. 


1610. 


Alchemist. 


1611. 


Catiline. 


1614. 


Bartkolemew Fair. 


i6r6. 


The Devil is an Ass. 


*With collaborators. 



King's. Globe. 

Queen's Revels. Blackfriars 

King's. Globe, 
Queen's Revels. ? 

King's. Blackfriars 

King's. Blackfriars 

Lady Elizabeth's. Hope. 

King's. Blackfriars 

It is absurd to say, as Mr. Fleay does, that Jonson left this 
company and went to that; one has to trace twelve such changes 
for twenty plays. "This continual change of company,"^ 
which Mr. Fleay says is peculiar to Jonson, simply indicates 
that he never had any definite connection with any compan5\ 

During their joint career as dramatists, Beaumont and 
Fletcher are as ' peculiar ' as Jonson in the continual changing 
of compan5% The following are the only certain dates of plays 
before 1616, (Beaumont's death) and they show how impossi- 
ble it is to arrange the plaj^s by periods in which the authors 
were writing for different companies. 



1607. 

Before Oct., 1610. 


Woman Hater, printed. 
Philaster. acted. 


Paul's Boys. 


King's Men. 


1612. 


Coxcomb, acted at court. 


Rossiter's Queen's Revels 


1612-3. 


Captain, acted at court. 


King's Men. 


1612. 


Cupid's Revenge, acted at court. 


Queen's Revels. 


In or before 1611. 


Maid's Tragedy, acted. 


King's Men. 


161 1. 


A King and No King, acted. 


King's Men. 


1613. 


Honest Man's Fortune, acted. 


Lady Elizabeth's Men. 



This list at least shows the difficulty of dividing the plays 
chronologically into groups written for different companies; 
yet this is just what Mr. Fleay tries to do, and he also tries to 
trace the changes of Beaumont and Fletcher in conjunction 
with Jonson's. This method has vitiated his entire chronology. 
To what extent it rests on ill-founded conjectures and neglect 
and misstatement of facts, we shall have occasion to notice in 
other places. Here, we can only point out the absurdity of 
the whole proceeding. 

Up to about September, i6io,^ he thinks Beaumont and 
Fletcher were writing for the Revels children, (Blackfriars 
Company and its successor at Whitefriars) ; and so all the plays 
acted b}^ the Revels Company are crowded into the years before 
that date. Then in company with Jonson,^ he thinks they 
left the Revels boys for the King's men, where they took the 
place of Shakspere.* But Shakspere's Tempest, according to 
Mr. Fleay 's own statement^ was not yet produced, and Beau- 
mont and Fletcher's Philaster was produced some time before 
Oct. 8, 1610. Moreover, Jonson's leaving the Revels for the 

iChr. I, p. 346. 

2 Except the Woman Hater for Pauls Bovs. For date see Chr. I, p. 
188 
3Chr. I, p. 188, Chr. I, p. 349. 
*Chr. I, p. 370. 
^Life of Shakspere, p. 248. 



King's men amounts to just this; from 1605 to the end of 1610, 
he wrote one play, Epicoene, (1609) which was acted by the 
Revels boys, and in 1610, \\\s Alchemist v^as acted by the King's 
men. Jouson did not change in September, 16 10, neither did 
Beaumont and Fletcher. 

From i6ioto 1613, Mr. Fleay keeps them busy writing plays 
for the King's men; but in 1613, he thinks "Fletcher, still 
following Johnson, now left the King's men " ^ and wrote 
16 1 3-1 6 for the I^ady Elizabeth's men. In 16 13, as a matter 
of fact, Jonson was in France with Sir Walter Raleigh's son, 
so it is hard to see in what way Fletcher followed him. The 
facts are simply these: Jonson' s Catiline was acted in 161 1 by 
the King's men, and his next play was acted three years later 
by the Lady Elizabeth's men. Beaumont and Fletcher's A 
King and No King was acted by the King's men in 161 1, and 
The Honest Man' s Fortune, in which Fletcher, at least, had a 
share, was acted by Lady Elizabeth's men in 1613. There 
are no other plays by Fletcher which were certainly acted 
1 61 3- 1 6 by Lady Elizabeth's men. 

Mr. Fleay 's method of arranging the plays certainly tends 
to distort the facts and may well be dispensed with. The rela- 
tions between the dramatists and the companies do, however, 
afford some assistance in determining the dates of plays. 
From 1 6 19 and perhaps from as early a date as 16 16, Fletcher 
seems to have been writing only for the King's men; at least, 
so many of his plays were produced by that company, there 
is small likelihood that he wrote for any other. Before i6i6, 
there is no definite evidence connecting either Beaumont or 
Fletcher for fixed periods with any company.^ The fact, how- 
ever, that one of their plays was produced by a given company 
at a certain date, makes it somewhat likely that other plays 
were produced by the same company at about that time. If 
they wrote some plays for the Revels boys before 161 1, there 
is a consequent likelihood that they wrote others. If none of 
their plays, so far as is known, were presented by the Queen's 
men, there is a strong presumption against any particular play 
of theirs being acted by the Queen's men. There is, however, 
no reason to suppose that different plays of theirs may not 
have been given first presentations by different companies in 
the same year. There is no reason why they may not have 
been writing in the same year one play particularly suited 
to one of the companies of children and another play for the 
King's men. 

I shall therefore attempt to determine the date of each play 



iChr. I, p. 195. 

2They wrote for Paul's boys. Queen's Revels, Rossiter's (Second 
Queen's) Revels, King's men, and Lady Elizabeth's men. 



13 



without any assistance from a conjectural division of Beaumont 
and Fletcher's dramatic career into periods marking their con- 
nection with diflferent companies. 

C. The Plague and the Closiiig of the Theaters. 

"In the reigns of James and Charles," writes Mr. Fleay, 
' ' the plagues were so frequent that the theaters were often 
closed in consequence. This took place whenever the deaths 
from plague amounted to forty per week." ^ He then goes on 
to show that this regulation was rigidly enforced because from 
an examination of Henslow's diary for 1593, it appears that 
the theater was closed from May 3 to Dec. 27, while the deaths 
exceeded forty a week from April 28 to Dec. 15. He, there- 
fore, concludes that the theaters were closed during all periods 
when the plague deaths per week were above forty; and hence 
in the later half of each of the five years 1606-10 inclusive, 
from about July i to the last of November, and particularly, 
from July 28 to Dec. 22, 1608, and from Dec. 26, 1608, to Nov. 
30, 1609. 

This theory, especially in respect to the closing of the thea- 
ters for sixteen months in 1608-9, is of great importance in 
Mr. Fleay's chronology of plays. It is, in fact, constantly 
leading him into trouble. He is obliged to assign the Scornful 
Lady, Monsieur Thomas, and any other plays which he thinks 
date 1609, to the small part of December which would remain 
after the announcement had been made that the deaths were 
less than forty. He is also obliged to explain the acting of 
Epicoene in 1609^ by the old style calender. One suspects, in- 
deed, that his theory that the theaters closed entirely was an 
offspring of his theories about the Blackfriars House, for in 
his Life of Shakspere * he assigns Cymbeline to the autumn of 
1609 and merely remarks, " this being a plague year, there was 
little dramatic activity." 

At all events, considered point by point, his theorj^ proves 
untenable. In the first place, it is not clear just what the 
regulation was for closing the theaters. Mr. Fleay insists that 
forty is the correct number of deaths,* but in Middleton's Your 
Five Gallayits,^ the following passage indicates that the number 
was thirty, — " 'tis e'en as uncertain as playing, now up and 
now down; for if the bill doiun rise to above thirty, here' s no 
place for players.'' Again in the rough draft of a patent for 



iH. ofS. p. 162. 

2 So stated in quarto and folio of 1616. 

*p. 162. 

*H. of S. p. 191. So stated in Privy Seal to King's Men, 1619-20. 

'L,icensed March 22, 1608. 



14 



the Earl of Worcester's men, published by Collier,^ it is es- 
pecially provided that they shall play ' ' when the infection of 
the plague shall decrease to the number of thirty within our 
city of London." Again in a letter printed in Winwood's 
Memorials,"- thirty a week is referred to as if it were the 
limiting number of deaths. Finally, in none of the eight 
patents granted to companies from 1603-16 15, except in the 
one just noted is there any reference to a limiting number. 
In six ^ there is no allusion whatever to the plague; and in 
the remaining one to the King's men,* they are to act "when 
the infection of the plague shall decrease. ' ' There is no refer- 
ence to the forty Hmit until the Privy Seal to the King's men 
in 1620.^ 

In the second place there is no certainty that any regulation 
prohibiting theatrical performances during the plague was 
rigidly enforced. Mr. Fleay's conclusion rests on the closing 
of Henslow's theater for seven months during a year when 
the deaths numbered 11,503; but because a theater was closed 
when the plague was so prevalent, it clearly does not follow 
that any regulation was strictly enforced fifteen years later 
when the deaths were averaging about twenty-five hundred 
yearly. A passage in Middleton's A Mad World my Masters^ 
makes it certain that theaters were sometimes closed because 
of the plague, but also makes it evident that the players de- 
cidedly objected to such regulations. When fear of the plague 
was not excessive, it seems reasonable to suppose that the regu- 
lations were unenforced or evaded. 

1 Vol. I, p. 336. Fleay suspects, to be sure, that this draft of a patent 
may be a forgery, but one of the chief reasons for his suspicion is that 
the number of deaths is stated at thirty instead of forty. H of S. p. 
140. 

2 Vol. II, p. 140. "The sudden riseing of the sickness to thirty a 
" week and the infesting of nineteen parishes, made us think the Term, 
"or Parliament, or both, might be prolonged and put off, but the 
" abating of some few this week makes us all hold on." 

Also printed Nichols I, 562. Dated Oct. 12, 1605. 

^ Privy Seal, Jan. 30. 1604. Her Majesty's Revels. Collier I, 340, 
Privy Seal, March 30, 1610. Duke of York's. Shak. Soc. Papers, IV. 
47. Privy Seal, April 15, 1609. Queen's Men. Shak. Soc. Papers, 
IV. 44. Privy Seal, April 30, 1607. Prince's Men. Shak. Soc. Papers, 
IV, 42. Privy Seal, Jan. 4, 1613. Palsgrave's Men. Collier I, 365. 
Privy Seal, May 30, 1615. Philip Rossiter et al. English Drama 
and Stage, p. 46. Roxburgh Library (1869). 

* Patent, May 17, 1603, King's Men. Collier I, 334. This patent was 
granted in the great plague year of 1603, when the deaths were over 
30,000. 

^Patent, March 27, 1620. English Drama and Stage. Roxburgh 
Library, 1869, p. 50. 

^Quarto 1608; acted (Fleay) 1606; " But for certain players, there 
"thou liest, boy, they were never more uncertain in their lives; 
"now up, and now down; they know not where to play, or what to 
" play, nor when to play for fearful fools." Act V, sc. i. 

15 



In the third place, Mr. Flea^-'s table of the periods 1606- 
16 10 when the deaths exceeded forty per week, is open to sus- 
picion. I have not been able to examine the mortality tables, 
but it seems curious that the deaths were less than forty per 
week for a period Dec. 22 to 26, 1608. At any rate, for five 
years the deaths averaged about 2,500 a year, and in 1609, the 
year in which the plague was severest, they were only a little 
over 4,000. This plague had been prevalent since the great 
outbreak of 1603; and one would hardly suppose it sufficient 
to close the theaters entirely during sixteen months in 1608-9. 

There is, in fact, very definite evidence that it did not. On 
the 5th of April, 1609, J. Hemings was paid for twelve plays 
performed at court by the King's men the Christmas before; 
and on the same date there was a payment for three plays by 
the Prince's men, presumably also given in the Christmas 
season 1608-9. At that time, according to Mr. Fleay, the 
theaters had been closed five months, and we have to suppose 
that the travelling companies^ were summoned back to London 
to play at court during the plague. A more likely inference 
is that the companies were playing in London both at the time 
of the court performance and the later payment. There is, 
in fact, no evidence that theaters, pageants, or business in 
general were to any extent interrupted by the plague in 1608-9. 
The Masque of Queens was performed Feb. 2, 1609 before the 
royal family at Whitehall; the king and royal family visited 
the Tower June 23, 1609, and the Bourse (new Exchange) was 
dedicated April 10, 1609. Moreover, in April, 1609, we find 
a patent granted to the Queen's players " to shewe and exer- 
cise publickly as well within their nowe usual houses called 
the Redd Bull, etc." * Apparently the theaters and companies 
were then in full swing. 

Jonson's Epiarne, too, was certainly acted in 1609, as stated 
in the first quarto and the carefully edited folio of 16 16. Mr. 
Fleay assumes that Jonson is using the old calendar and that 
1 609 may include Jan. -March 1 6 10, hence he dates the play 1610,^ 
because he thinks the theaters were closed during 1609, and 
because he sees in the prologue a reference to the Whitefriars 
theater which he thinks was occupied by a company of Revels 
boys in 1610. The last reason is one of Mr. Fleay's wildest, 
and may be at once dismissed ; ' ' the daughters of Whitefriars ' ' 



1 They were presumably away from London, unless they returned 
for the period Dec. 22-Dec. 26, when Fleay thinks the plague deaths 
were less than forty a week. 

2 Fleay (Chr. I, 31) says " they did not play until December on ac- 
count of the plague." 

3 Chr. I, p. 374. 

16 



has no reference to the theater,-^ The assumption ihat Jonson 
used the old style calendar, beginning the year IV.arch 26, is 
equall}' contrary to fact but has some value as a ypical ex- 
ample of Mr. Fleay's methods. 

In jfixing the date of Epiccene in 16 10, he remarks, ' ' this play 
like the Fox and other plays, has hitherto been da.fed a year 
too early, in consequence of the use of the old style dates." ^ 
Nevertheless, earlier in the same volume, he expressl}^ states: 
"Jonson and Chapman begin their 3'ear Jan. i; most other 
writers March 26." ^ Fortunately we have the means for de- 
termining which of these two contradictory statements is true 
by comparing the dates given in the quartos and folio for several 
of the masques with the known dates of their prese\tation. 
The following table will make it perfectly plain that in dating 
his productions Jonson began the year with January first. 

Date given in Quarto. Date given in New style date of Masque. 

1616 Folio. Court Perf'r'nce. 

1605 and 1608. 1605 and 1608. Jan. i, 1605, and Blackness. 

Jan.. 160S. 

Jan. 5, 1606. not dated. Jan. 6, 1606. Hymen. 

1608. 1608. Jan. 14, 160S. Beauty. 

Quarto, enteredlS. R., Feb. 22, i6og. Feb. 2, 1609. Feb. 2, i6og. Queens. 

1608. Feb., 1608. Hue and Cry. 

after Cupid. 

The evidence* (note particularly the date given for the 
Masque of Qiceens) seems to be conclusive that the 1609 date 
given in the Folio for Epicoene means from Jan. i to Dec. 31, 
1609. 

Finally, then, Mr. Fleay's deductions from his theory of 
the closing of the theaters add nothing to its plausibility. In 
addition to placing Epicoene in 16 10, he places the Scornful 
Lady, Ram Alley, ^ Monsieur Thomas, and quite possibly other 
plays I have not noticed, in December, 1609. In the week 
ending Nov. 30, the plague deaths exceeded forty; another 

'^Epicoene. Prologue. . . " Some for lords, knights, 'squires ; 
" Some for your waiting wench, and city wives, 
" Some for your men and daughters of Whitefriars." 
See, also, Volpone, IV. i.,'"Ay, your Whitefriars nation." Gifford 
explains the passage: "Whitefriars was at this time a privileged 
spot in which fraudulent debtors, gamblers, prostitutes, and other 
outcasts of society usually resided." See, also. The Blacke Booke 
4to 1604. B. 8, p. 30, "drabs in Whitefriars" and Father Hubbard's 
Tales, Bk 8, p. 78,^" Whitefriar's nunnery," Bk 8, p. 84, " Whitefriars, 
Pict. -hatch, and Tumball Sheet." 

2Chr. I, p. 374- 

^Chr. I, p. 65, foot-note. 

*The only case I have noted in which the folio does not date by the 
new style is in that portion which Mr. Fleay himself says was not 
supervised by Jonson, i. e., which is without marginal notes and 
whose statements are less correct. There, the Golden Age Restored, 
acted Jan. i and 6, 1616, is dated 1615. 

^He is in doubt between Dec, 1609 and 1610. 

3 17 



week must have elapsed in which they were less than forty, 
and at least a few da5\s more according to his theory before 
the companies could have acted. ^ He supposes, then, that 
after sixteen months of idleness or absence from London, the 
companies at once began playing and that one of them, the 
Queen's Revels, brought out two new plays in the last two 
weeks of December, 1609. This supposition alone is enough 
to throv/ suspicion on his theory. 

On the whole, the most that can be safely asserted is that 
the theaters were very possibly closed during the summer and 
autumn months of 1609-10, when the plague was more fatal 
than co/nmon. During these months the companies probably 
spent some of the time in travelling. There is positive 
evidence that the theaters were not closed during sixteen or 
seventeen months 1608- 1609, and the only safe assumption is 
Mr. Fleay's earlier one that theatrical activity may have been 
considerably lessened because of the plague in 1609. 

D. The Occupancy of Blackfriars by the King' s Men. 

Mr. Fleay dates all the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher 
acted by the King's men later than the fall of 1610. He does 
this because he thinks Beaumont and Fletcher then left the 
Revels children and joined the King's men, and because he 
thinks the King's men had then just begun playing in Black- 
friars, where he seems to imagine all Beaumont and Fletcher's 
plays were first acted. The first reason we have already 
found to be groundless ; the second is of enough importance 
in Mr. Fleay's chronology to require special attention. 

The date of the occupancy of Blackfriars by the King's 
men, he reaches by a curious process. The Blackfriar Share 
Papers, first published by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps in his O^it- 
lines of the Life of Shakespeare , proved that Burbadge took 
back the lease of Blackfriars from Evans (given ih 1600) and 
established a men's company there instead of the boys, taking 
Underwood and Ostler" from the boys' company into the 
King's men. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps stated the date of the 
change to be December, 1609.' Thereupon, Mr. Fleay in his 
Life of Shakespeare^ took Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps to task for 
merely guessing. Mr. Fleay declared that Burbadge bought 
the remainder of the lease probably on Lady's Day, 16 10 and 
then took possession of the building. Then Mr. Green- 

^Mr. Fleay seems to think the theaters were opened before any 
announcement was made or the deaths were less than forty a week, 
for he speaks of the re-opening of the theaters Dec. i. Chr. i,ji. 

2 Field's name is also mentioned, but this seems surely a misstate- 
ment. He does not appear with the King's men until about 1616. 

^Outlines, p. 150. 

4 p. 164. 

18 



street's discovery of the papers of the Kirkham-Biirbadge 
case, proved that Burbadge actually bought back the lease in 
August, 1608. Mr. Fleay, however, clung to as much of his 
former theory as he possibly could. The King's men did not 
take possession, he affirmed in his History of the St age, ^ until 
December 24, 1609. He seems to have finally arrived at Mr. 
Halliwell-Phillips' earlier guess. 

Now, this date, December 24, 1609, involves the following 
improbable theory : Although Burbadge bought back the 
lease in August, 1608, the theater was closed by the plague 
until Nov. 30, 1609 ; just as soon as possible after the deaths 
were less than forty a week (Dec. i to 7), the company which 
had occupied the theater before 1608, the Queen's Revels 
children, began playing again in Blackfriars; on December 
24, they gave it up to Burbadge and the King's men. Mr. 
Fleay's support for this theory is three-fold : (i) the Scorn- 
ful Lady was acted at Blackfriars in 1609, by the Queen's 
Revels; (2) a new company of boys, a successor of the old 
Queen's Revels, was formed by Rossiter in January, 1610, 
and the first Revels did not leave Blackfriars until then; (3) 
the plague closed all the theaters from July 28, 1608, to Nov. 
•30, 1609. 

These supports are all conjectural and groundless. The first 
we have already seen to be improbable, as will appear more 
conclusively in our discussion of the Scornful Lady. The sec- 
ond has no ground, for the Revels company was certainW on 
the verge of dissolution in 1608, and there is no reason to be 
sure that it kept together until Rossiter's company was formed. 
Further, the Revels children might conceivably have left 
Blackfriars some time before they joined Rossiter's company, 
or they might have shared the Blackfriars for a while with the 
King's men, as Collier suggested.^ At any rate, the Revels 
company in a disbanded state wouldn't have been very likely 
to occupy Burbadge' s theater to the exclusion of the King's 
men. The third conjecture, in regard to the plague, has 
already been shown to be without foundation. 

So much for Mr. Fleay's theory. The facts are clear enough. 
Just what became of the remnant of Queen's Revels from 1608- 
1610 is, indeed, open to conjecture, but there can be no doubt 
about the King's men. Evans sold back his lease to Burbadge 
in August, 1608. The reasons for the transfer are stated to 
have been legal inhibitions and financial difficulties. Burbadge 
placed men players in Blackfriars ; but before doing so, accord- 
ing to the testimony of his children/ he took Ostler and Under- 

^ p. 200. et passim. 

2 Vol. I, p. 360. Mr. Fleay also states that two companies may have 
sometimes shared the same theatre. Life Sliaks., p. 164. 
2 Blackfriars Share Papers. H. P. Outlines, V. I, p. 286-293. 

19 



wood into the King's men. The King's men probably occupied 
Blackfriars from 1608 on, as is indicated by the statement of John 
Hemings in a legal paper, dated Nov. 5, 161 2, who declares that 
for four years past he had received (as a partner of Burbadge) 
a share in the profits of the Blackfriars house, /. e., since the 
surrender of the lease by Evans. ^ There is nothing, moreover, 
to oppose the natural conclusion that the King's men took pos- 
session of Blackfriars very soon after August, 1608. 

E. The Revels Companies. 

We have already examined Mr. Fleay's theory of the career 
of the Queen's Revels in so far as it was affected by the plague 
years and the closing of Blackfriars. His further discussion of 
this and the other Revels companies seems to me inadequate ; 
but since it does not affect the dates of any of the Beaumont 
and Fletcher plays, I shall merely note the conclusions reached 
in my investigations without discus.sing the changes of the com- 
panies in detail. 

On the whole the most reasonable chronology is that in 1605, 
after their difficulty over Eastward Ho, the Queen's Revels 
boys ceased for a time to use that name but continued in Black- 
friars until August, 1608, when the company was broken up 
and the lease resold to Burbadge. The King's Revels appear 
as early as 1607 (when the Paul's boys disbanded), and not 
later than 1610 ; they employed some of the poets and possibly 
some of the actors of the Queen's Revels. Possibly the Queen's 
Revels kept up some sort of an organization from 1608 to 1610, 
but, surely, in 1610 the name was associated with a new com- 
pany of children, including some from both the King's and the 
Queen's Revels, which was managed by Rossiter and acted at 
Whitefriars. This chronology is not without difficulties, and 
cannot be relied upon with certainty in establishing dates of 
plays. We have not enough evidence to trace out in detail the 
history of the Revels Companies from 1604- 1613, but the im- 
portant facts are certain. In 1608 the first Queen's Revels 
disbanded, and in 1610 a new company of Queen's Revels was 
established. 

F. Shakspere with Beaumont and Fletcher^ writing for the 
King' s Men. 

Still another theory of Mr. Fleay's requires especial examin- 
ation. He asserts that Shakspere gave up writing for the 
King's men in the autumn of 1610,^ and that Jonson, Beau- 

^Greeustreet Papers. H. of S., p. 238. The joiut and several answers 
of John Hemings and Richard Burbadge, etc. 
2Chr. I, p. 170, 



mont, and Fletcher succeeded him about September. Mr. 
Fleay thinks that before this date Beaumont and Fletcher wrote 
for the Queen's Revels at Blackfriars, until December, 1609, 
and for Rossi ter's new company at Whitefriars in 1610. We 
have seen how little basis there is for any theory that traces 
the careers of these dramatists by their connections with com- 
panies. In regard to Shakspere there is no evidence, whatever, 
that he left writing in the fall of 16 10. There is, on the con- 
trary, important evidence, as we shall see later, that he wrote 
for the King's men even until 1613.^ 

Mr. Fleay' s theory, however, can be disproved without going 
outside of his own discussions. He fixes the date of the Temp- 
est,^ as do most critics, after Jourdain's narrative, published 
October 13, 16 10 ; so Shakspere was, according to Mr. Fleay' s 
own account, writing for the King's men after that date. In 
Davies' Scourge of Folly (entered S. R., October 8, 1610) there 
is an epigram on Philaster} This play, in the first quarto, is 
stated to have been " acted at the Globe by his Majesty's Ser- 
vants ;" therefore Beaumont and Fletcher were certainly writ- 
ing for the King's men before Shakspere stopped writing for 
that company. 

In addition to the evidence of the date of the Tempest, we 
may note that the evidence of the date of the Winter's Tale, 
and the opinion of his most competent biographers agree in 
placing Shakspere' s withdrawal from dramatic writing later than 

the latest possible date for Philaster. 

To show how these theories of Mr. Fleay 's have vitiated his 
results, it will be enough to state that, owing to his conjectures 
that the King's men did not occupy the Blackfriars house until 
December, 1609, and that the plague closed all the theaters for 
seventeen months, and that Beaumont and Fletcher did not 
join the King's men until the autumn of 16 10, he has placed 
the first productions of six of their best plays in the ten months 
from December, 1609, to September, i6ro. He places the Scorn- 
fjil Lady and Monsieiir Thomas at the Blackfriars in 1609, the 
Knight of the Biinmig Pestle, the Coxcomb, and Oipid' s Re- 
venge at the Whitefriars in 1610 ; and Philaster at the Black- 
friars by the King's men before Oct. 8, 1610. Without con- 
sidering the evidence for the date of each play, the production 
of these six plays in ten months is improbable. According to 
Mr. Fleay, Beaumont wrote almost the whole of two of these 
and a large share in three others, which is a very large propor- 
tion of his life's work to assign to so short a period ; besides, 

iSee discussion of Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen, Chapter 
IV. 
2Lifeof Sh., pp. 248-9. 
8 Correctly stated by Fleay. Chr. II, 189. 



the six plays show wide diflferences in style and dramatic 
methods. 

Leaving Mr. Fleay's theories, we may again repeat the im- 
portant facts. In August, 1608, Burbadge took back his lease 
of Blackfriars. During 1609 the plague was more severe than 
usual. Beaumont and Fletcher were certainly writing for the 
King's men before Shakspere left the company. 

G. Evidence of Folios, Quartos, and Verse-tests. 

In addition to the foregoing remarks on stage-history, there 
are some general considerations in respect to the evidence of 
folios and quartos and of verse-tests which may best be stated 
now. Beaumont and Fletcher, like Shakspere, took no care 
about publishing their plays. Only four were printed before 
Beaumont's death in 1616, and his name appears on none of 
these. Fletcher's name appears on only the Faithful Shepherd- 
ess and Cupid's Revenge. In general, their plays seem to have 
held the stage and to have been kept from the printers; at any 
rate, only fourteen plays were published in quartos before the 
folio of 1647, which contained thirty-six plays never before 
published. These were all assigned to Beaumont and Fletcher; 
but Beaumont certainly had no share in many of them, Fletcher 
probably had no share in a few, while Massinger certainly had 
a large share in many, and other dramatists in a few. The 
evidence of both quartos and folio on the question of author- 
ship is nearly valueless. 

In the second folio of 1679, the plays previously published 
in quarto were added to those of the first folio; and to these 
latter, lists of the chief actors were in many cases supplied. 
These lists were added to all the plays of the first folio certainly 
acted by the King's men and to three others, and are an im- 
portant aid in determining the dates of those plays. Seven 
lists have Burbadge at the head, so the plays must have been 
acted before his death in 1619; and the remaining plays by the 
King's men without Burbadge' s name date pretty certainly 
after 1618. The presence or ab.sence of other actors on these 
lists helps to fix their dates more exactly. 

From 1622 on, we also have the dates of licensing given in 
Herbert's office book. A number of plays, however, have 
neither actors' lists nor are on Herbert's books. The presump- 
tion, therefore, is that they were not acted by the King's men 
and that they date before 1622; or — since the time 1618-1622 is 
well filled with plays by the King's men — probably before 16 18. 

A further means of fixing the dates of these plays is that of 
verse-tests, used primarily to determine the authorship of the 
plays. These have been applied to Beaumont and Fletcher's 



plays by^ Fleay, Macaulay, Boyle, and Oliphant, to whose 
work I shall have frequent occasion to refer. Beaumont seems 
to have stopped writing for the stage i6i 1-12, at least, no plays 
in which he certainly had a share date later than that; so if 
the critics agree in giving Beaumont a share in a play, the date 
is presumably before 161 2, and certainly before 16 16. The 
trouble is they don't agree; still, including disputed cases, there 
are only some fifteen plays which Mr. Fleay, or Mr. Macaulay, 
or Mr. Boyle assigns to Beaumont. Mr. Oliphant, however, 
thinks that a great number of the plays of uncertain date were 
first written by Beaumont and Fletcher, or by one of them alone, 
and later revised by other authors. 

The reasons which lead him to such a conclusion may be 
briefly summarized. ( i ) If a play is not on Herbert's licensing 
books, it was originally produced before 1622, and probably, 
as noted above, before 161 8. (2) Many of these plays accord- 
ing to all investigators, show signs of revision by other authors 
than Beaumont or Fletcher. (3) If written within a few years 
before 1622, it is odd that they should be revised shortly after 
Fletcher's death in 1625. There is a probability, therefore, 
that they were early plays; and in addition to these general 
considerations, (4) he finds in some specific indications of 
Beaumont's authorship. In this way he places before 161 2 
some twelve plays in addition to those so dated by Mr. Fleay. 
This obliges him to date the beginning of Beaumont and 
Fletcher's writing for the stage as early as 1604; a reference 
to the known facts of their lives will show that this date is 
probable enough. 

Mr. Oliphant' s general reasoning is plausible, but his 
attempts to separate the work of two original authors and 
two revisers with their various permutations, are, from their 
nature, not of a sort to excite unlimited faith. Unless there 
is direct corroborating evidence of an early date, his conclu- 
sions in respect to a play must clearly be viewed with the 
utmost caution. At the same time, there is no doubt that a 
number of these plays were revised; and, a priori^ there is 
almost a probability that some in their present form may be 
revisions of early plays. 

In general, I shall avoid questions of authorship except 

1 F. G. Fleay : Transactions New Shakespear'e Society, 1874. Chron- 
icle of the English Drama, 1891. 

G. C. Macaulay: Fraficis Beaumont, a critical study, 1883, London. 

R. Boyle: Englische Studien, V, VII, VIII, IX, X— 1881-2-1886. 

Transactions New Shakespeare Society, 1886. 

E. F. Oliphant: Englische Studien, XIV, XV, XVI, 1890-92. 

In referring to these I shall use simply the author's name unless 
special reference is necessary. 

A. H. Bullen in the article on Fletcher in the Diet, of Nat. Biog. 
has also discussed the authorship of the plays. 



when they directly affect the date; but as a number of such 
cases occur, a word may be added here on the subject. 
Fletcher's style is so clearly distinguishable that anj'^ one who 
has read him carefully ma}-- recognize it with some degree of 
certainty. Nevertheless, his Faithful Shepherdess^ is written . 
in a very different style and suggests that Fletcher may 
have varied his versification in other plays. Of Fletcher's 
work, however, we may generalh^ be sure; Massinger's style, 
though by no means as distinctive as Fletcher's, is somewhat 
readily distinguished by verse-tests from either Fletcher's or 
Beaumont's. Beaumont's versification rests on a somewhat 
doubtful canon; when a play is known to be by Beaumont 
and Pletcher, the part not in Fletcher's recognized manner is 
accredited to Beaumont. This separation was accomplished, 
however, with great skill by Mr. Macaulay* and has been 
substantiated in the main by other critics. When a pla}- is 
probably too late for Beaumont, the part neither in Massin- 
ger's nor in Fletcher's style goes begging. Field seems to be 
the favorite, but the vense-tests show little difference between 
his work and Beaumont's. Mr. Fleay seems confident that 
he can tell the difference, but he observes : " Mr. Boyle is, as 
I have frequently pointed out, incapable of distinguishing 
Field's work from Beaumont's." '^ Mr. Oliphant frankly con- 
fesses that the distinction between Field and Beaumont is one 
of the critic's most difficult tasks. He excepts the determina- 
tion of the authorship of prose passages, and here the basis 
of analysis .seems to be individual opinion rather than 
scientific demonstration. 

H. The " '' em-theyn'''' test. 

I venture to offer a new test which I think may be of serv- 
ice in testing the analysis already made by critics. Slight 
though it may seem, it certainly has the merit of definiteness. 
It is simply an author's use of ' them ' and ' 'em.' Every one 
who has read many of Fletcher's plays must have noticed the 
great frequency with which he uses ' 'em ' instead of ' them ' — 
'kill 'em,' 'with 'em,' etc. This fact led me to count the 
' thems' and ' 'ems ' in Henry VIII and the Two Noble Kins- 
men with a view of testing the generally accredited divisions of 
those plays between Fletcher and Shakspere. The results given 

1 Mr. Fleay has no doubt that Beaumont had a share in this, Chr. I, 
p. 178, but the external evidence is strong to the contrary. 

^Of the other critics, it may be noted that Mr. Fleay, after his 
usual fashion, gives his conclusions and ingeniously conceals his 
reasons. Mr. Boyle and Mr. Oliphant are scientific in their methods, 
but Mr. Boyle is a bit over-fond of discovering Massinger, and Mr, 
Oliphant often carries his analysis of revised plays beyond the limits 
of plausibility. 

3 Chr. I, 206. 

24 



in another place are rather surprising. A little more counting 
showed that the preference for either ' them ' or ' 'em ' is, so far 
as it goes, a fair indication of authorship. 

Thus Fletcher, in the Woman's Prize^ uses sixty 'ems to four 
.thems ; in Bonduca,"' eighty-three 'ems to six thems ; in the two 
last plays oi Four Plays in One,^ fifteen 'ems to one them. 

These plays, as all others mentioned here, were selected 
purely at random, and probably indicate fairly Fletcher's de- 
cided preference for ' 'em.'* Moreover, he seems to have a 
special fondness for bunching several 'ems in a few lines, as : 

" Bring 'em in, 
Tie 'em and then unarm 'em.'"' 

" Now look upon 'em, son of Earth, and shame 'em ; 
Now see the faces of thy evil angels ; 
Lead 'em to Time, and let 'em fill his triumph !'"* 

" Caesar's soft soul dwells in 'em, 
Their mother got 'em sleeping. Pleasure nursed 'em!"' 

Shakspere differs ver}^ noticeably from Fletcher, and uses 'em 
only sparingly. In Cymbeline^ there are sixty-four ' thems ' and 

1 Woman's Prize, I, i, o them, 2 'ems; I, 2, i them, 3 'ems; I, 3, 2 
thems, 10 'ems ; I, 4, o them, i 'em ; II, i, o them, 3 'ems ; II, 2, o them, 
I 'em ; II, 3, o them, o 'em ; II, 4, o them, i 'em ; II, 5, o them, 7 'ems ; 
II, 6, o them, 9 'ems ; III, i, o them, 3 'ems ; III, 2, o them, 3 'ems ; III, 
3, o them, o 'em ; III, 4, o them, 4 'ems ; IV, i, i them, 3 'ems ; IV, 2, 
o them, o 'em ; IV, 3, o them, i 'em ; IV, 4, o them, i 'em; IV, 5, o 
them, o 'em ; V, i, o them, 5 'ems ; V, 2, o them, 2 'ems ; V, 3, o them, 
o 'em ; V, 4, o them, i 'em. Total, 4 thems, 60 'ems. 

^Bonduca, I, i, 10 'ems, o them; I, 2, 8 'ems, I them; II, i, 4 'ems, 
o them; II, 2, i 'em, o them; II, 3, 17 'ems, o them; II, 4, 5 'ems, i 
them; III, i, 4 'ems, i them; III, 2, i 'em, o them; III, 3, 5 'ems, o 
them ; III, 4, o 'em, o them ; III, 5, 13 'ems, i them; IV, i, o 'em, i 
them ; IV, 2, i 'em, i them ; IV, 3, 4 'ems, o them ; IV, 4, i 'em, o 
them ; V, I, 2 'ems, o them ; V, 2, 2 'ems, o them ; V, 3, 5 'ems, o them. 
Total, 83 'ems, 6 thems. 

^Triumph of Death, 10 'ems, o them. 

Triumph of Time, 5 'ems, i them. 

Fletcher's Share in Four Plays, 15 'ems, i them. 

* ' Them,' however, is used in the Faithful Shepherdess; but that play, 
if Fletcher's, seems to be an exception to every rule that can be deter- 
mined for him. 

'" Bonduca, III, 5. 

6 Triumph of Time., Scene IV, near end. 

"^ Bonduca, I, i. 

^Cymbeline, I, i, 3 thems, o 'em' I, 4, o them, i 'em [prose]; I, 5, 3 
thems, o 'em ; I, 6, 5 thems, o 'em ; II, i, 2 thems, o 'em ; II, 3, i them, 
o 'em ; II, 4, 4 thems, o 'em ; II, 5, 4 thems, o 'em ; III, i, 3 thems, o 
'em; III, 2, 2 thems, o 'em; III, 3, 2 thems, i 'em; III, 4, i them, o 
'em ; III, 6, 3 thems, o 'em ; IV, i, i them, o 'em ; IV, 2, 12 thems, 
o 'em; IV, 3, 2 thems, o 'em; IV, 4, i them, o 'em; V, i, 2 thems, o 
'em ; V, 3, 2 thems, i 'em ; V, 4, 5 thems, o 'em ; V, 5, 6 thems, o 'em. 
Total, 64 thems, 3 'ems. 

25 



three ' 'ems'; in the Whaler's Ta/e,^ thirty-seven ' thems ' and 
eight ''ems;' and in the 7>;/z/)^^//^ thirty-eight 'thems' and 
thirteen ' 'ems.' 

So far as my observation goes ' 'em' occurs with the same 
comparative infrequency in the earlier plays as in the romances. 

Massinger invariably uses 'them.' At least, I have gone 
through seven of his plaj^s without finding a single ''em,' 
while each play contains from twenty to fifty ' thems.' ^ 
These seven plays, the Maid of Honour^ the Diike of Milan, A 
New Way to Pay Old Debts, the Great Duke of Florence, the 
Guardiayi, the Roman Actor, the City Madam, differ widely in 
character and date and must fairly represent his practice. 

Beaumont's practice is less certain. In the first two plays 
of Four Plays in One,* which are generally assigned to him, 
there are four 'thems' and eight' 'ems.' In the Woma?i 
Hater, also generally assigned to him, there are twenty-eight 
'thems' and seven ' 'ems.'^ In A King and No King, in 
the portion assigned to Beaumont by Mr. Boyle," there are 

1 Winter's Tale, I, i, i them, o 'em ; I, 2, 2 thems, o 'em ; II, i, 2 
thems, I em ; II, 2, i them, o 'em ; II, 3, 2 thems, o 'em ; III, i, i them, 
o 'em; III, 2, 2 thems, o 'em; III, 3, i them, 2 'ems [prose]; IV, 3, 
o them, 2 'ems ; IV, 4, 18 thems, 3 'ems [7 thems, 2 'ems, in prose]; V, 

I, 3 thems, o 'em ; V, 2, 3 thems, o 'em [prose]; V, 3, i them, o 'em. 
Total, 37 thems, 8 'ems. 

^The Tempest contains in addition four 'ems in one line of a snatch, 
III, I, 130. 

" Flout 'em and scout 'em. 
And scout 'em and flout em." 

And one additional them in a song, I, 2, 404. Counting these the 
total is 39 thems, 17 'ems. 

The Tempest, I, i, i them, o 'em ; I, 2, 5 thems, 4 'ems ; II, i, 4 thems, 
o 'em ; II, 2, o them, i 'em; III, i, i them, i 'em; III, 2, 3 thems, i 
'em; III, 3, 5 thems, 2 'ems; IV, i, 7 thems, o 'em; V, i, 12 thems, 4 
'ems. Total, 38 thems, 13 'ems. 

I suspect that this proportion of ' 'ems ' is about Shakspere's maxi- 
mum. 

3 For table of these plays, see next page. 

* Triumph of Honour, 3 thems i 'em. Triumph of Love, i them, 
6 'ems. Total, 4 thems, 8 'ems. 

^The Woman Hater, Prologue, 3 thems, o 'ems; I, i, i them, o 
'ems; I, 2, o thems, o 'ems, I, 3, i them, i 'em; II, i, 5 thems, i 'em; 

II, 2, o thems, o 'ems ; III, i, i them, o 'ems ; III, 2, o thems, o 'ems ; 

III, 3, I them, I em ; IV, i, 8 thems, o 'ems ; IV, 2, 2 thems, i 'em ; 
V, I, I them, I 'em; V, 2, i them, o 'ems; V, 3, o thems, o 'ems ; V. 
4, 2 thems, o 'ems; V, 5, 2 thems, o 'ems. Total, 28 thems, 7 'ems. 

•^A King and No King, I, i, o thems, 10 'ems ; I, 2, o thems, o 'ems ; II, 

1, I them, 4 'ems ; II, 2, 2 thems, 4 'ems ; III, i, o thems, 3 'ems ; III, 

2, I them, 3 'ems; III, 3, o thems, 3 'ems; IV, i, o thems, 2 'ems; 

IV, 2, o thems, 4 'ems ; IV, 3, o thems, o 'ems ; IV, 4, i them, 9 'ems ; 

V, I, o thems, 3 'ems ; V, 2, o thems, i 'em ; V, 3, 2 thems, o 'ems ; V, 
4, 2 thems, 5 'ems. Total, 9 thems, 51 'ems.* 

* 111 a King and No King, Mr. Boyle assigns IV, i ; IV, 2 ; IV, 3 ; V, 2 to Fletcher, 
leaving Beaumont the rest with 7 thems and 42 'ems ; but whatever division is 
made the proportion of thems and 'ems in Beaumont's share will not be greatly 
changed. 

26 



seven 'thems' and forty-two "ems.' So far as appears on 
the face, these results indicate that Beaumont used ' 'em ' and 
'them' indiscriminately. Field certainly did; for in his A 
Woman is a Weathercock, there are, so far as I have counted, 
eighteen ' 'ems ' and twelve ' thems.' 

The definite results obtained in the cases of Fletcher, Mas- 
singer and Shakspere furnish safe standards. Modern texts 
follow the first quartos or folios carefully ; and the uniformity 
of the results, compared with the diversity of editions, shows 
that printers' errors may be disregarded. I cannot find, 
either, that any one of these authors is distinctly influenced 
in his use of ' 'em ' by the character of the speaker. Thus, 
Prospero says ' 'em' as well as Ariel, Caliban, and Antonio. 
Neither does the nature of the subject matter nor the use of 
prose make any appreciable difference. The preference for 
either ' 'em ' or ' them ' seems to have been merely an individ- 
ual mannerism; and in the case of these three authors, a very 
distinct one. Fletcher uses ' them ' very rarely, once where he 
uses "em' fourteen or fifteen times; Shakspere uses "em' 
rarely, and 'them' frequently; Massinger always writes ' them.' 

The serviceableness of this test used as a supplement of the 
usual verse-tests in determining authorship, must be apparent. 
Henry VIII furnishes an example of its use in separating the 
work of Shakspere and Fletcher; and a single random example 
will show how it may be used in cases of Fletcher-Massinger 
authorship. In the Queen of Corinth ^ in the part assigned to 
Massinger by Mr. Fleay, there are twenty-one' thems ' and one 

1 Queen of Corinth. Massinger's Part (Fleay) ; I, i, 5 thems, o 'ems ; 
I, 2, 9 thems, I 'em; I, 3, b, o thems, o 'ems; V, i, 4 thems, o 'ems; 
V, 2, o thems, o 'ems; V, 3, 3 thems, o 'ems. Total, 21 thems, i 'em. 



Massinger's Plays. 


Tab] 


eof ' 


thems.' No ' 


'ems 


' occur. 


> 





^ 





!>3 





% 

























■^ 


K 




>^% 


3 




0^ 


"< 











^r 




D; 


0.^ 


% 






g 


w 


s« 


> 


P 


^^^ 


p 








i 


n 


% 






5 




I 


5 


4 


4 


6 


5 


7 


7 




2 


7 


6 


4 


I 


12 


4 


3 




3 


5 


5 


4 


13 


3 


14 


6 




4 


4 


8 


6 


7 


9 


3 


6 




5 


3 


I 


3 


I 


18 


3 


10 




Total 


24 


24 


21 


28 


5ot 


31 


321 


210 



t 3 'thems' in prologue. Total without these, 47. 

JTwo of the dramatis persouse are caUed ' Diug 'em ' and ' Have 'em.- 



27 



''em;' in the Fletcher part, one 'them' and six ''ems.' In 
general, the existence of even a single 'em in a Massinger part 
is very suspicious, and the existence of a large number of 'ems 
is a pretty safe indication of Fletcher. The test will also in 
some cases, I think, serve to call attention to interpolations or 
additions by a second author, which verse-tests alone would 
not indicate. Thus, even the .single 'em in Massinger' s part 
of the Queen of Corinth is enough to warrant special examina- 
tion of the passage in search of a second hand. Of course, 
the serviceableness of the test is limited; and it is of little 
value except as a supplement of the usual verse-tests. Since 
we are concerned with dates rather than with authorship, there 
will be little occasion to use it; there will be sufficient occasion, 
however, to demonstrate its value. 

/, Court Afasqties ayid the Chronology. 

A word or two must be added in regard to the influence of 
the court-masques on the public drama. * 

During the reign of James I., court-masques attained a 
great importance both as splendid spectacles and in the liter- 
ature of the time. They were very numerous, were pro- 
duced at great expense, and engaged the services of the best 
poets of the day. Usually performed at a marriage, or on some 
festival like those of the Christmas season, they consisted 
primarily of two parts, ( i ) the dramatic dialogue usually setting 
forth .some allegorical or mythological device which formed the 
basis of an impressive spectacle, and (2) the dances interspersed 
with songs and accompanied by niusic. These dances were 
performed by ladies and gallants of the highest court circles, 
the queen often participating. In addition to these elements, 
about the year 1608 a third appeared, the anti-masque, con- 
sisting of grotesque dances by ' antick ' personages. These 
comic anti-masques at once became exceedingly popular and 
played no small part in the entertainments. The antic dancers 
were almost always actors from the public theaters.^ 

Fletcher's Part; I, 3, a, o thems, o 'ems; I, 4, o thems, o 'ems; II, r, 

thems, o 'ems ; II, 2, o thems, i 'em; 11,3, o thems, i 'em: 11,4, 

1 them, 4 'ems. Total, i them, 6 'ems. 

1 For a full account of the English masques, see Die Englischen Mask- 
enpiele, Alfred Soergel, Halls, 1882. In addition to the evidence which 
Dr. Soergel gives for the presence of actors from the theaters, see 
Middleton's the Inner Temple Ufasque ; or Masque of Heroes, quarto 
1619, where a list of actors from a public company is given. For 
further illustration of the part which actors played in entertainments 
and pageants, see the Athencetim, May 19, 1888, where Mr. Halliwell- 
Phillipps shows that Burbadge and Rice were "the players that rodd 
upon the twoe fishes and made the speeches at the meeting of the highe 
and mighty prince of Walles upon the river Thames " — ^June 5, 1610. 
Burbadge, " Amphion seated on a dolphin," Rice, "a nymph, riding 
on a whale." See also the "■ Entertaintnent to King J antes, ''^ Th, 

28 



This last fact points to an interesting connection between the 
masques and the drama, for it establishes an a /;7V?r/ probability 
that the antic dances used in the masques would be performed 
again in the theaters. As Mr. Harold lyittledale has shown, ^ 
such a repetition of an anti-masque does undoubtedly occur in 
the Two Noble Kinsniai, borrowed from Beaumont's Masque of 
the Inner Temple a7id Gray's Lui, 1613, and consequently the 
play may be dated shortly after 161 3. I shall suggest that the 
date of the JVmler's Tale is in a similar way determined by the 
repetition of a dance of satyrs from Jonson's Masque of Obcro7t. 

The influence of the masques in a more general wa)^ on the 
public drama has been emphasized by Mr. Fleay ^ and treated 
at length by Dr. Soergel. I shall have occasion to note this 
influence in the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher and Shak- 
spere. Here I merely wish to call attention to the possible 
service of a study of this influence in determining the dates 
of plays. There were forty-nine masques performed at court 
1603-1642; and it is very probable that public plays borrowed 
many details in addition to anti-masques.^ 

Dekker, quarto, 1604. 'Zeal' "whose personage was put on by W. 
Bourne, one of the servants to the young Prince." 

^See The Two Noble I^insi?ien, ed. Harold Littledale, New Shak- 
spere Society. Series II, 7, 8, 15, 1876-85. Mr. Ivittledale was unac- 
quainted with Dr. Soergel's investigation and gave this borrowing less 
prominence than it deserves in fixing the date. See the discussion of 
the play in chapter 4. 

2 Fleay : Chr. I. 12. Soergel, p. 87, seq. Fleay seems to think that 
masques occur in plays only when they were added for some court 
performance. So he conjectures that the masques in the Tempest and 
the Maid's Tragedy were additions. Dr. Soergel has shown that 
similar masques occur in other plays ; and many features of the court- 
masque were certainly introduced on the public stage. 

^Much of the material in this section and in the discussion of the 
masques in the Two Noble Kinsmen and the Tempest, has been already 
published in Publications of the Mod. La7ig. Ass' 11 of America. Vol. 
XV ; No. I. " Influence of the Court-Masques on the drama." 



29 



chapter hi. 
Chronology of Shakspere's Romances. 

These three plays were first entered S. R. and published in 
folio in 1623. From the agreement of different verse-tests and 
from the general opinion of critics, they are thought to have 
been written at the close of Shakspere's career and after all 
his plays except Henry VIII and the Tivo Noble Kinsvie7i. 
There is almost no evidence, however, even from verse-tests, 
to determine the relative order of the three; although the 
general character of style seems to indicate that Cymheline was 
the earliest. 

The Tragedy of Cymbcline. There is no record of any court 
performance, and the only evidence for the date ^ is the entry in 
the note book of Dr. Simon Forman. This entry is not dated; 
but as the accompanying note on Maebeth is dated April 20, 
1610, and that of the Winter's Tale, May 15, 161 1, the Cym- 
beline entry must belong to those years. Forman died in 
September i6r i , so that is the outside date for the entry. Mr. 
Fleay, who thinks vShakspere retired from play-writing in 16 10, 
fixes the date of Cynibeline in 1609;^ and since that year was 
a plague year, thinks the play was perhaps not finished for the 
stage until after Shakspere's retirement. Yet he thinks Phil- 
aster (certainly before Oct., 16 10) contains passages suggested 
by Cymbeline } He also thinks that the historical parts of 
Cj'w^^/z;/,? were written about 1606, when Shakspere may have 
been using Holinshed for material for Lear and Macbeth.^ 
These are pure conjectures. So far as the plague of 1608-9 
may be taken to have diminished theatrical activity,^ the fact 
makes 1610 rather than 1609 a probable date. Forman' s elabo- 
rate description indicates that the play was new to him. The 
date is probably within a year of 16 10. 

The Tempest. It was one of the fourteen court plays paid 
for on May 20, 16 13 (Vertue Ms.),® and consequently was 

^ It is a curious fact that the 1600 quarto of Much Ado contains the 
following opening stage rlirection : "Enter Leonate (and) Imogen 
his wife." Imogen does not appear elsewhere in the play. 

"^ Life of Shaks., p. 246. 

3Chr. II, p. 193. 

* Life of Shaks., p. 246, Chr. II, 193. 

''See pp. 14-17. 

^Sh. Soc. Papers. II, p. 124. 

30 



acted at court in the fall or winter i6 12-13, According to the 
forged revels' accounts of Cunningham, it was also acted at 
court 161 1, Nov. i; and there is evidence that these forgeries 
were based in part on fact.^ It is probably referred to, together 
with the JVmfer's Ta/c in the induction to Ben Jonson's Bartho- 
lemew Fair."^ The name, Tempest, has been thought by some 
to have been suggested by the great storms of the fall of 1612; 
and by others by the tempest encountered by Sir George 
Somers on his voyage to the Bermudas, 1609. 

Malone^ has shown certain resemblances between passages 
in the play and passages in Jourdan's A Discovery of the Ber- 
mudas, otherwise called the Isle of Devils, by Sir Thomas Gates, 
Sir George Somers, and Captain Newport, ivith divers others, 
which was published Oct. 13, 16 10. Malone also thought that 
particulars in the play were derived from A True Declaration 
of the Estate of the Colony of Virginia, published Nov. 8, 
1610. Mr. Fleay, on the contrary, thinks the word tragi- 
comedy in this last pamphlet refers to the play, and, hence, he 
concludes that the Tempest was acted between the dates of the 
publication of Jourdan's narrative and A True Declaratio?i. A 
glance at the passage* in question will show how groundless is 
this conjecture. 

Dr. Furness, in his variorum edition of the Tempest, is in- 
clined to belittle the importance of both of Malone' s sugges- 
tions, and thinks that similar resemblances can be shown 
between particular passages in the play and Wm. Strachey's 
A True reporatory of the wracke and redemption of Sir Thomas 
Gates, Knight upon and from the Islands of Bermudas, etc. , 
which was published in 161 2. This argument is by no means 
a reductio ad absurdam, for Strachey's narrative may possibly 
have preceded the play. vSuch evidence as Malone' s is not 
absolutely conclusive, and, in the case of the True Declaration, 
not quite convincing; but the references in the play to the ' 'still- 
vext Bermoothes^" and the detailed points of resemblance 



^See Furness' Variorum Editiou of Othello, pp. 351-360. Also Sid- 
ney Lee's Life, p. 254, note. 

2 "If there be never a servant-monster in the fair, who can help it, 
he says, nor a nest of antiques? he is loth to make nature afraid 
in his play, like those that beget tales, tempests, and such like drol- 
leries, to mix his head with other men's heels ; let the concupiscence 
of jigs and dances reign as strong as it will amongst you, etc." 

3 Variorum Shakespeare, 1S21. 

* " What is there in all this tragicall-comaedie that should encourage 
us with the impossibility of the enterprise? When, of all the fleete, 
one onely ship by a secret leake was indangered, and yet in the gulfe 
of despaire was so graciously preserved." See Fleay, Shaks., pp. 248, 
249. 

^I, 2, 229. 



31 



make it fairly certain that the play was not acted until after 
Jourdan's narrative was published/ 

The news of Somer's voyage created great interest in Lon- 
don in September, 1610, and there were four other narratives 
besides Jourdan's, which was the earliest." The date of the 
play, then, cannot be earlier than Oct. 13, 1610, and not later 
than the court presentation, 1613. It was probably written and 
acted late in 16 10 or early in 161 1. 

A Winter's Tale. Like the Tempest, it was one of the four- 
teen plays acted at court 16 13, and was referred to b}' Jonson 
in Bartholomeiv Fair} It was described in Dr. Forman's note- 
book under the date May 15, 161 1. This is the final Hmit for 
the date.* I think the early limit is determined by the date of 
Ben Jonson's Masque of Oberon, Jan. i, 161 1. 

This contains an anti-masque of satyrs, and I conjecture that 
the dance of satyrs in the Winter's Talew2iS directly suggested 
by the anti-masque. Anti-masques, as we have seen,'' were 
first introduced about 1608, and at once became very popular. 
In Oberon there is one of these antic dances, doubtless per- 
formed by actors from the public theaters. This was a dance 
often (or twelve)" satyrs, " with bells on their shaggy thighs," 
and is thus described. 

" Here they fell suddenly into an antic dance full of gesture 
and swift motion and continued it till the crowing of the cock." 

Again, after the entrance of Oberon, there was a little more 
dancing by the satyrs. 

" And the satyrs beginning to leap, and express their joy 
for the unused state and solemnity." 

In the Winter's Tale there is a similar antic dance of twelve 



^ There is no other evidence as to date. Gonzalo's description (II, 
I, 147) is from Florio's Aloiiiaigiie (ist edition, 1603). The "dead In- 
dian" (II, 2, 36) exhibited for a show, offers no aid in regard to the 
date. It may refer to one of Frobisher's Indians (1577). There were, 
also, some Indians brought from New England in 161 1. For notice of 
Fleay's theory that the masque was added by another writer for the 
court presentation. See p. 29. 

2 See Sidney Lee's Life, pp. 252, 253. 

^It may, also, have been acted at court in Nov., 161 1. It is one of 
the plays assigned to that date in the forged revels' accounts. See p. 30. 

^No other date can be assigned as a final limit with any probability. 
Mr. Fleay thinks there are several references to the play in Jonson's 
address to the reader in the 1612 quarto of the Alchemist. The phrase 
" concupiscence of dances and jigs " reminds one of the wording of the 
reference in the induction to Bartholoinetv Fair; but the other ref- 
erences which Mr. Fleay sees are less convincing. See Chr. I, 275. 
The passages in the Alchemist and Bartholomew Fair show that Jon- 
son was decidedly opposed to the introduction of masques and anti- 
masques into plays. 

'^See p. 28. 

^ " Two sylvans " possibly join in the dance. 

32 



satyrs which is clearly an addition to please the audiences of 
the day, 

" Servant. Master, there is three carters, three shepherds, 
three neat-herds, three swine-herds, that have made themselves 
all men of hair, they call themselves Saltiers, and they have a 
dance which the wenches say is a gallimanfry of gambols, 
because they are not in't; but they themselves are o' the mind, 
if it be not too rough for some that know little but bowling, 
it will please plentifully. 

Shepherd. Away! we'll none on't; here has been too much 
homely foolery already. I know, sir, we weary you. 

Polixenes. You weary those that refresh us: pray, let's see 
these four threes of herdsmen. 

Servant. One three of them, by their own report, sir, hath 
danced before the king; and not the worst of the three but 
jumps twelve foot and a half by the squier. 

Sheperd. Leave your prating; since these good men are 
pleased, let them come in; but quickly now. 

Servant. Why, they stay at door, sir, \Exit^ 

Here a dance of twelve satyrs.^ " 

Irike the dancers in the masque, these are great leapers and 
like those they are men of hair. Moreover, three of them by 
their own report had danced before the king as did the satyrs 
in the masque. 

Now, while satyrs were not altogether uncommon on the 
Elizabethan stage, a dance of satyrs " full of gesture and swift 
motion" was certainly an inovation in 1611. Such anti- 
masques were only introduced about 1608, and such a dance 
of satyrs is not found in any court masque before, or for that 
matter after, 161 1.'^ The lVmte?''s Tale is generally dated 
about the first of 1611;^ therefore, either Jonson must have 
borrowed from the public stage the idea of an antic dance of 
satyrs for his court masque, or Shakspere must have borrowed 



iiv, 4, 11. 331-353. , , 

2 There is a dance of "six Sylvans " in act III, scene 2, of Chap- 
man's the Widoiv's Tears, 4to, 1612, acted according to Fleay in 1605. 
This dance is the main feature of a brief wedding masque. The syl- 
vans bear torches, are "fair" and "fresh and flowery." They lead 
out the bride and five other ladies, who 

"all turn nymphs to-night 
To side these sprightly wood-gods in their dances." 

Altho the sylvans are elsewhere alluded to as "curveting and trip- 
ping on the toe," and their dances are called "active and antic," they 
evidently were not as active asjonson's satyrs nor at all grotesque, 
and their dance was not an anti-masque. It was, in fact, the masque 
proper, danced with the ladies and closing the entertainment. 

"Jonson and Shakspere were friends, and at this time both were 
writing plavs for the King's men. Jonson: Alchemist, 1610; Catiline, 
1611. 

4 33 



from the court masque this new and popular stage device for 
his Winter' s Tale . The second alternative is far more probable 
because of the great importance of the court masques and the 
desire for novelty in them, and because the public may natur- 
ally be supposed to have been anxious to see a reproduction of 
a popular anti-masque. It gains additional probability from 
the fact that actors from the theaters performed in these anti- 
masques and from the reference to the three who had already 
danced before the king. It is still more probable because 
an anti-masque in Beaumont's yl/a.y^7c<r of the Inner Temple is ob- 
viously made use of in a similar way in the Tivo Noble Kinsmen} 
Finally, we may note that the dance is an integral part of the 
Masqjie of Obcron, while it is a pure addition to the pla5\^ 

The probability is, then, strong that Jonson devised this 
dance of satyrs for his Masque of Obcron, where it was performed, 
at least in part, by actors from the King's men, and that Shak- 
spere introduced the dance, doubtless with some variations but 
with some of the same actors, in the Winter' s Tale. This 
fixes the date of the play between Jan. i, and May 15, 161 1. 
This harmonizes with the general Ij'^ assigned date 161C-11. 

^See p. 44. 

^It is worth noting that in the masque the chariot of Oberou was 
drawn \>y two white bears. Perhaps here as in the dance, costume and 
actor reappeared in the play in the bear who chases Antigonous. 
(111.3.) 



34 



CHAPTER IV. 

Chronology and Discussion of Henry VIII, the Two 
Noble Kinsmen, and Cardenio. 

What external evidence there is assigns Henry VIII to 
Shakspere (the folio of 1623) and the Tivo Noble Kinsmen 
to Shakspere and Fletcher (quarto, 1634). Since Mr. 
Spedding's essay in 1850,^ there has been a growing belief 
that Fletcher also had a part in Henry VIII; and since Mr. 
Spaulding's essay in 1833,^ perhaps a majority of critics have 
been inclined to recognize Shakspere' s work in the Two 
Noble Kinsmen. Great diversity of opinion, however, still 
exists. While no one doubts Fletcher's share in the Two 
Noble Kinsmen^ there are all sorts of opinions in regard to the 
non-Fletcherian part; and in the case of Henry VIII some 
critics still think it is whollj'- by Shakspere* while others 
doubt if he had anything to do with it.* A large majority ot 
competent judges at present recognize Shakspere as author 
of a part of Henry VIII and Fletcher as author of part of 
Tzvo Noble Kinsmeii; but we have at most only the support of 
a doubtful majority in assigning each play to both Shaks- 
pere and Fletcher. 

The reasons and authorities for this opinion will be given 
in the discussion of each play, but at the start we may note 
two general objections which have had great weight with 
critics of judgment. In the first place, they have found it 
difficult to think of Shakspere condescending to write a play 
in company with another dramatist, especially when, as in 
Henry VI I I his part is somewhat the less important. Yet 
Shakspere apparently had co-adjutors in both Timon and 
Pericles, and co-adjutors certainly inferior to Fletcher in both 
ability and reputation. In 1613, Fletcher was one of the most 
prominent dramatists, and it is very doubtful if Shakspere 
would have seen any condescension in taking Beaumont's 
place. This objection is simply another exhibition of the 



1 Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted New Shakespeare Society's 
Transactions , 1874. 

2 Reprinted by New Shakespeare Society, 1876. See, also, N. S. S. 
Transactions, 1874. 

3 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. Outlines, IT, 292-4. 
*Mr. Boyle. N. S. S. Transactions, 1884. 

35 



common fallacy of always regarding Shakspere as a world 
genius and never as an Elizabethan dramatist. Shakspere' s 
own practices and the general practice of Elizabethan drama- 
tists, show that his collaboration with Fletcher would be no 
cause for wonder. 

In the second place, the inferiorit)^ of the supposed Shaks- 
perean parts in comparison with the best of his mature work 
has led some to question his authorship. In the Two Noble 
Kinsmen, particularly, the non-Fletclierian parts, good as 
they are, have not seemed quite worthy of Shakspere. The 
trouble with this objection is that it rather assumes that 
Shakspere was always at his best and entirel}' overlooks the 
fact that his worst was decidedly bad. We must remember 
that probably at about the same time that he was writing 
Antony and Cleopatra he was also writing Coriolmius , Timon 
and Pericles. When we discern weakness of characterization 
in Henry VIII or the Tzvo Noble Kinsmen, we must remember 
that after creating the Falstaff of Henry /Fhe could produce 
the Falstaff of Merry Wives. There were, of course, no 
other dramatists who wrote anywhere nearly as well as he did 
at his best, and to ray mind, there were no other dramatists 
who wrote very much like his style at his best or worst. Any- 
how, the question in regard to the supposed Shaksperean 
parts of these plays is not, are they as good as he could do ? 
but are thej^ like what he did ? 

So much for these two general objections; the elaborate 
theories that have been built up in respect to the plays, we 
can by no means consider in detail. Almost every critic who 
has dealt with the plays has his own theor)'^ of dates and 
authorship; and many a critic has seen fit to reject his first 
theory for a second. To discuss all these adequately would 
require a volume; there are, however, two main positions 
often taken which seem to me untenable and which will be 
noted in our discussion of the plays. These two positions 
may be stated here. 

First, apart from the general objection to Shakspere's 
authorship just noticed, efforts have been made to determine 
the author of the non-Fletcherian parts of the plays. ThCvSe 
parts are thought hy some not only unequal to Shakspere 
but also unlike Shakspere, or at least more like another. 
Mr. Boyle's papers assigning these parts to Massinger^ are 
the most sj-stematic exposition of this opinion, but other 
students give Massinger a different share and still others think 
Beaumont, Chapman, or some one else was the author. These 
theories can only be briefly touched upon in our discussion, 

^N. S. S. Transactions, 1880-86 ; p. 371 seq ; p. 443 seq. See, also, 
Eng. Studiefi, Vol. IV. 

36 



but the evidence for Shakspere's authorship will be nc _ ^ 
in the case of each play. 

Second, many who think Shakspere had a share in one or 
both of these plays, do not think that he wrote in direct col- 
laboration with Fletcher, but that he left the plays unfinished 
and they were completed by Fletcher,^ or as is held by others, 
by Fletcher and Massinger.'^ We shall later consider some 
definite evidence against this opinion. 

In the main, however, our discussion of the two plays will have 
little to do with theories. Leaving objections and counter- 
theories to one side. I shall try to show definite evidence (i) 
that both plays were first acted in 1613 and (2) that both plays 
were written by Shakspere and Fletcher in direct collaboration. 

HENRY VIII. 

Date. First printed in folio of 1623. 

On June 29, 16 13, while the King's men were acting a play 
of Hen)-}' VIII the Globe Theater was burned. The event is 
described in several letters of the time,' but whether the play 
then being acted was the Henry VIII oi the folio of 1623, is 
not absolutely certain. The fact, however, that a Henry VIII 
was played by Shakspere's company at a time when Shakspere'* 
was connected with that company and was very possibly in 
London,^ makes it practically certain that this was the He?iry 
F/// published by two of the company in the folio of 1623. 

Moreover, the account given by sir Henry Wotton of the 
1613 play, applies in several important particulars to the folio 

iSo Mr. Speddiug on Henry VIII. N. S. S. Transactions, 1874. 

■^ Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Fleay think Massinger 'revised Fletcher's 
work. 

^ Harleian Ms. 7002. A letter from Thomas l/Orkin to Sir Thomas 
Pickering, dated " this last of June, 1613." Court and Times of James 
I, 1848, Vol. I, p. 253. 

Winwood's Memorials, III, 469. A letter of July 12, 1613, refers to 
the burning of the theater and the play Henry VIII. 

Howe's continuation of Stowe's Chronicles, p. 1003, also refers to 
the fire and the play Henry VIII. 

Reliquics Wottoniancc, 1675, pp. 425-6. A letter by Sir Henry Wot- 
ton to his nephew dated July 6, 1613, contains an account of the play. 
"The King's players had anew play, called All is True, representing 
"some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the Eighth, which was 
' ' set forth with man}' extraordinary circumstances of pomp and majesty, 
"even to the matting of the stage; the Knights of the Order, with 
"their Georges and Garter, the guards with their embroidered coats, 
"and the like; sufficient in truth, within a while, to make great- 
" ness very familiar, if not ridiculous. Now, King Henry making a 
"mask at the Cardinal Wolsey's house, and certain cannons being shot 
"off at his entry, some of the paper or other stuff wherewith one of 
"them was stopped, did light on the thatch " — etc. 

* Fletcher, too, if one of the authors, had written many plays for 
the King's men before 1613, and wrote many after that. 

^Shakspere bought a house in Blackfriars, March, 1613. See H. P. 
Outlines I, 220. 

2>1 



<^^oi/. Wotton calls it a new play. The title, All is One, is 
^^luded to three times in the prologue.^ The play also contains 
^" some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the Eighth," and 
these may fairly be said to be " set forth with extraordinary 
circumstance of pomp and majesty, " ^ It also contains Knights 
of the Order and guards^ and a masque of King Henry's at 
Cardinal Wolsey's, in which chambers are discharged/ These 
resemblances increase the probability that the play in the folio 
was the play of 1613. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Halliwell-Phillips^ and Mr. Fleay in his 
Life of Shakspere^ have insisted that the plays were not the 
same. The main reason for their opinion, which is shared by 
others, is found in an interpretation of a poem which describes 
the burning of the theater. They think the allusion in this 
poem to the fool indicates that there was a fool in the 16 13 
play, and as there is no fool in the folio play, the two must be 
different plays. The allusion seems to me likely to refer to 
some member of the company who usually played the fool, or 
it may be a general allusion with no specific reference. Even 
if it refers to a fool iu the entertainment of June 29, 1613, we 
need not conclude that the fool was a regular member of the 
dramatis personae of the play. Fools who performed between 
the acts or after the play were common. The reference, then, 
is at best doubtful and by no means sufficient to contradict the 
evidence already noted, which favors the identity of the folio 
and 1613 plays." 

Moreover, those who think Shakspere wrote a part of the 
play now universally consider it one of his later productions, 
and this is iu harmony with the 1613 date. Furthermore, the 
play can hardly be earlier than 161 1 because of the reference 
to* the strange Indian,^ and surely not earlier than 1607 because 

^ Lines 9, 18, and 21. 

'^e. g., note the stage directions, II, 4; IV, i. 

^See dramatis personae. 

*I, 4. Stage direction after 1 48 : " Drum and Trumpet, chambers 
discharged." 

^Outlines, I, 310-31 1. II, 290-292. 

^pp. 250, 251. Mr. Fleay, however, seems to have changed this opin- 
ion, for in his Chronicle of the Drama, II, 193, he dates Shakspere's 
part oi Henry VIII &\)o\xX. 1611, and says: " Probably completed by 
Fletcher, and produced as a new play 1613 at the Globe." So I judge 
he now thinks the folio play the same as the 1613 play. 

^The fact that the "matting of the stage" mentioned iu Wotton's 
account is not mentioned in the folio play, — and the discrepancy be- 
tween the shilling alluded to in the prologue and the usual price at 
the Globe (2d) hardly seem important considerations. 

^See H. P. Outlines, II, 294. Five Indians were brought to England 
in 1611, and one of great stature was exhibited. This " strange Indian " 
of the play (V. 4, 34) has suggested many conjectures. To identify him 
with the "dead Indian" of the Tempest is funny enough, but Mr. 
Boyle's interpretation is surely the most astonishing of all. He mis- 

38 



of the reference to Virginia.^ In short everything points to the 
identity of the play in the folio with the play at the burning of 
the Globe. It is possible that the two may be different just as 
it is perfectly possible to question almost every accepted fact 
of Elizabethan stage history; but there is no definite evidence 
to controvert the considerable definite evidence that the Henry 
VIII oi the foho was first acted in 1613. 

Authorship. The only external evidence that the play is 
Shakspere's is its place in the folio of 1623. The folio editors 
are not to be trusted on questions of authorship, for they cer- 
tainly included some plays not wholly Shakspere's and omitted 
others in which he had a part; but it is not certain that they 
included any play in which he did not have a share. In 
1623,'^ if no part of the play was by Shakspere his fellow 
actors must have known it, and there is no reason to imagine 
that they would have placed it in the folio. 

Mr, Spedding's Essay in 1850 conclusively proved that there 
were two authors of the play and that the second was Fletcher. 
His essay has been substantiated by many later investigators 
and has been somewhat generally accepted. The various verse- 
tests all show two distinct styles, one very like Fletcher's and 
one very like Shakspere's later style. 

Fletcher's share is doubted by no one who has systemati- 
cally studied his versification, and Mr. Boyle's theory ^ that 
Massinger wrote the Shaksperean part is certainly not well 
proved. While we shall keep this and other theories in mind, 
we shall start with Mr. Spedding's division of the play between 
Shakspere and Fletcher,* which seems to me reasonably con- 
clusive. 

Eet us see, then, what warrant there is from this division 
for supposing the play to have been written in direct collabora- 

understauds au obsceue allusion, and thinks " the word (tool) was evi- 
dently meant for a proper name," and identifies it with the Irishman 
O'Toole in Middleton's Fair Quarrel, IV, 4. Thus, he fixes the date 
of the play as late as 1617. N. S. S. Transactions, 1880-86, p. 464. Series 
I, 8-10. 

^v. 5, 51-53. 

"Those who think the play was not by Shakspere date it later than 
1613. 

^N. S. S. Transactions 1880-86, p. 493, seq. Boyle also gives Mas- 
singer some scenes generally assigned to Fletcher. The difficulty with 
any such theorj' is in proving that any other dramatist wrote in Shak- 
spere's characteristic manner. Mr. Boyle assumes this off hand in the 
case of Massinger. " From the characteristics of meter alone it would 
be difficult to decide whether a particular passage, or even play, was 
written by Shakspere or Massinger, so similar is the latter's style to 
that of Shakspere's later dramas." This assumption seems to me 
contrary to fact ; and any theory based on it is a priori, of doubtful 
value. 

^ Shakspere : Act I, sc. i, 2 ; Act II, sc. 3, 4 ; Act III, so. 2 (to exit 
of King) ; Act V, sc. i. The rest by Fletcher. 

39 



tion. Shakspere was probably in lyondon in 1613, and was 
still connected with the King's men.^ Fletcher was a promi- 
nent and popular dramatist who had collaborated with Beau- 
mont in writing some very notable plays for the King's men.^ 
Beaumont had probably stopped writing for the King's men 
by 1 61 2' and Shakspere' s attention seems to have been con- 
siderably occupied with other affairs: * it seems perfectly pos- 
sible and natural that Shakspere and Fletcher should have 
worked together. 

Moreover there is no tangible evidence either of interpolation 
of each other's work or of revision. The play in the folio is 
divided into acts and scenes; five scenes and the first half of a 
sixth are by Shakspere, the rest by Fletcher. On the face of 
things it looks as if, after the usual fashion of Elizabethan col- 
laboration, Shakspere wrote certain scenes and at the same 
time Fletcher wrote certain others. The various verse-tests, 
as has been noted, show that this division is almost surely 
accurate. 

The ' 'era-them ' test also presents further evidence on this 
point. Taking Mr. Spedding's division (the usually accepted 
one), I have counted the ''ems' and ' thems ' in the play. 
In the Winter's Tale, Shakspere uses 37 ' thems ' and 8 ' 'ems; ' 
in Boiiduca, Fletcher uses 83 ' 'ems ' and 6 ' thems,' and in the 
Woman' s Prize, 60 ' 'ems ' and 4 ' thems ' ^ The following 
table will show the results in the Shaksperean and Fletcherian 
portions of Henry VIII. 

The ' 'em-them ' test used entirely as a supplement to the 
other tests very strongly confirms the accepted division of the 
play between the two authors. It also strongly confirms the 

Shakspere^s Part. 



ACT. SC. 


THEM. 


LINES. 


'EM. 


LINES. 


TOTAL LINES IN 
SCENE. 


I. I. 

I. 2. 

II. 3. 

II. 4. 

III. 2a. 
V. I. 


4 
5 

2 
3 
3 


8, 9. 25, 30 
32, 37, 46, 62, 94 

51. 195 

2, 3. 79 

145, 151. 152. 


2 
2 



I 



34,84 

21,49 
195 


226 

214 
108 
241 


Total. 


17 




5 




1 168 



iH. P. Outlines I, 220. 

2 Philasier, The Maid's Tragedy, A King and No King, before the 
end of i6ii. 

^No plays certainly by him after 161 1. See p. 10. 

^H. P. Outlines I, 219-220. Sidney Lee's Life of Shakspere, Chap, 
XVI. 

^See ante Chap. II The figures given here represent the approxi- 
mate averages. 



40 



Fletcher's Part. 













TOTAL LINES IN 


ACT. SC. 


THEM. 


LINES. 


'EM. 


LINES. 


SCENE. 


I- 3- 







7 


4,8,12,13,36,42,43 


68 


I. 4. 


I 


60 




4,8,13,23,44,57.58, 


108 




58,72,77,78,107 




II. I. 







4 


65, 66, 68, 106 


169 


II. 2. 


I 


II 


2 


7.39 


141 


III. I. 







5 


2.35.36,105,158 


184 


III. 2b. 


I 


334 




234, 244. 399 


256 11 203-459 


IV. I. 


I 


29 


3 


9. 79, 80 


]i8 


IV. 2. 







3 


147, 149. 150 


172 


V. 2. 







3 


27, 28, 34 


35 


V. 3- 







3 


22, 22, 23 


182 


V. 4. 







13 


7,13,14,14,16,23,32, 
58,59,61,62,67,81 


94 1-70 prose 


V. 5- 







I 


15 


77 


Total. 


4 




57 




1604 



Prologue, I them. Epilogue, 2 'ems. These should perhaps be added to Fletcher's 
share, making the total 5 thems aud 59 'ems. 

assignment of these parts to Shakspere and Fletcher, since 
the ratio and the total of 'ems and thems in the former's part 
corresponds closely with his practice in the Winter's Tale 
(161 1 ), and the ratio and total of 'ems and thems in the latter' s 
part corresponds closely with his practice in Bonduca (before 
1616). Incidentally, too, it demonstrates the worthles.sness of 
Mr. Boyle's division of the play between Massinger and 
Fletcher.^ 

1 Mr. Boyle assigns all the Sliakspere portion, as given in our table, 
to Massinger and in addition I, 4, 1-24, 2 'ems; I, 4, 64-108, 4 'ems; 
II, I, 1-53, o 'ems; II, i, 137-169, o 'ems; IV, i, 3 'ems and i them; 
V, 3, 1-113, 3 'ems. This gives in the total share assigned to Massin- 
ger, 18 thems and 17 'ems. Now Massinger as we have seen, uses 210 
thems and not a single 'em in the seven plays counted. [See p. ] 
An examination of Mr. Boyle's results also shows that he thinks that 
Massinger not only wrote like Shakspere, but also very like Fletcher, 
for he assigns to Massinger some 400 lines generally ascribed to 
Fletcher. The ' 'em-them ' test has strengthened the probability of 
the Fletcher and Shakspere divisions ; and a critic who can make hay 
of these as does Mr. Boyle must have an extraordinary notion of Mas- 
singer's faculty of varying his style. 

Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Fleay are no more convincing in their assign- 
ments to Massinger. The former {Englische Sttidien, 15, 326), gives 
Massinger II, i, 137-eud ; IV, i, 1-36; V, 3, 1-96 (or V, 2, 35-129; 
scenes 2 and 3 should perhaps be connected). In these 162 lines he 
assigns 7 'ems and i them to Massinger, including such Fletcherian 
lines as these (V, 3, 22), 

"Pace 'em not in their hands to make 'em gentle. 
But stop their mouths with stubborn bits, and spur 'em." 

Mr. Fleay {Life Shaks., pp. 250, 251; assigns I, i ; III, 2, 1-193 ; V, i, 
to Massinger, thus giving him 3 'ems. 



41 



Moreover, an examinatiou of the table will reveal consider- 
able evidence that the Shakspere and Fletcher parts are distinct, 
free from interpretations and revisions. There is only one 
scene (II, 3,) which contains neither ' 'ems' nor 'thems;' and 
in each of the other scenes assigned to Shakspere there is a 
decided predominance of ' thems, ' while in each scene of 
Fletcher's there is a decided predominance of ' 'ems.' We 
find no bunching of ' 'ems ' after Fletcher's manner in Shak- 
spere's part, and we find onlj' 5 ' 'ems ' in the 1 168 lines. This 
does not disprove the possibilit}^ of interpolation or revision, 
but it does in connection with the other tests point strongly to 
the probability that we have Shakspere' s and Fletcher's work 
intact. 

Collaboration. In the absence of any distinct evidence to 
the contrary, we may assume this probability as a working 
hypothesis and see what evidence there is in the play itself of 
direct collaboration between the two authors. 

Let us see what Shakspere wrote. Act I, scene i, is intro- 
ductory and expository, presenting four of the leading charac- 
ters, the King, Wolsey, Buckingham, and Katharine, and car- 
rying the action through the arrest of Buckingham. Act I, 
scene 2, presents the trial of Buckingham. Act II, scene 3, 
introduces an old lady and Anne BuUen, who has already been 
introduced in the Fletcherian part, and represents Anne as the 
recipient of the King's favors; it also prefaces Katharine's 
fall. Act II, scene 4, is the trial of Katharine, in which she, 
the King, and Wolsey play the chief parts. Act III. scene 2, 
lines 1-203, is expository and introductory of the fall of Wol- 
se5'. Act V. scene i, is expository and introductory to the 
birth of Elizabeth and the elevation of Cranmer — the two 
events which occupy the rest of the act. 

To relurii agaiu to Mr. Boyle's theory ; we have seen that his assign- 
ment of the date of the play rests in part on the amusing identifica- 
tion of the "strange Indian" and "O'Toole," that his theorj^ rests 
on the exceedingly questionable assumption that Massinger's style is 
very similar to that of Shakspere's later dramas, and finally that his 
division between the two authors is simply untenable. It is hardly 
necessary to consider his argument farther, but it may be added that 
his main evidence, that of Massinger's repetition and consequent par- 
allel passages, is at best evidence of a very dangerous and misleading 
sort and that Mr. Boyle by no means keeps clear of absurdities. 

Mr. Boyle himself advanced his theory with hesitation, and probably 
very few have accepted it in its entirety. The trouble with such a 
theory is that it gains a partial acceptance from its very intricacy. 
Critics say ' the theory is nonsense, but it may have a germ of truth, 
perhaps Massinger did have something to do with the play,' or 
they are incited to make still another guess at the authorship. Thus 
Mr. Sidney Lee speaks of "occasional aid from Massinger" {Life, p. 
262), and Mr. Fleay suggests Beaumont. {Chr. II, 193. J There is no 
evidence for Massinger and about as much likelihood of Beaumont as 
of Bacon. 

42 



Now let us see what Fletcher wrote. Act I, scene 3, is 
merely a conversation on French fashions between gentlemen 
of the court on their way to Wolsey's. Act I, scene 4, presents 
the masque at Wolsey's and for the first time in the play in- 
troduces Anne Bullen. Act II, scene i, presents Buckingham 
after his trial. Act II, scene 2, is introductory and expository 
of Katharine's fall and presents the arrival of Campeius. Act 
III, scene i, represents the visit of the Cardinals to the for- 
saken Katharine. Act III, scene 2, from line 203 to the end, 
represents Wolsey's fall and his farewell scene with Cromwell. 
Act IV, scene i, represents the coronation of Anne Bullen. 
Act IV, scene 2, represents Katharine, sick and forsaken, 
making her last farewell. Act V, scenes 2 and 3, represent 
Cranmer's elevation. Act V, scene IV, is devoted to a comic 
porter and the crowd pressing at the doors. Act V, scene 5, 
brings the play to the conclusion with the christening of Eliza- 
beth and Cranmer's prophecy. 

The play deals with the introduction, fall, and farewell of 
Buckingham, of Wolsey, and of Katharine ; and with the rise, 
elevation, and farewell of Anne Bullen and of Cranmer. Fol- 
lowing this analysis we find that Shakspere introduced Buck- 
ingham, Wolsey, and Katharine, and described the downfall 
of Buckingham and Katharine, while Fletcher described the 
fall of Wolsey and the farewells of all three. Fletcher intro- 
duced the story of Anne Bullen, Shakspere shared in its de- 
velopment, and Fletcher carried it to its spectacular conclusion 
in the coronation and christening scenes. Fletcher introduced 
the Cranmer story (IV, i); Shakspere developed it up to the 
point of the main situation, which with Cranmer's farewell 
was written by Fletcher. 

Thus each writer shared in each of the five main actions. 
Shakspere's work, though largely expository, includes the trial 
scene of Katharine; Fletcher's work, while including the main 
scenes and situations, also includes introductory matter for 
which Shakspere supplied the dramatic development. On the 
whole, then, it seems improbable that Shakspere would have 
written parts of the five main stories and left them all un- 
finished. On the contrary, it seems probable that he had the 
general course of each of the main actions well in mind when 
he wrote. The most natural conjecture, it seems to me, is that 
a historical and spectacular play was planned (perhaps by 
Shak.spere) dealing with these five main events. The play 
was undertaken in collaboration between Shakspere and 
Fletcher; each, after the manner of Elizabethan collaborators, 
undertaking certain scenes. Shakspere may have intended 

1 Compare Maid's Tragedy: I, 2, (noted by Boyle) and Four Plays. 
Induction. 

43 



to do more than he did do, he may have been prevented 
by some cause from carrying on a situation which he had intro- 
duced and may, therefore, have turned that work over to 
Fletcher; but I see no reason to suppose that Shakspere first 
wrote his part as we have it and stopped there. It seems to 
me iinlikely that any dramatist should begin a play in that 
way — beginning three different actions, taking up two in the 
middle, and finishing none. 

In this instance I am at odds with the weight of authority; 
but on the other hand there is, as we have seen, a priori a 
likelihood of direct collaboration. To my mind the distinct 
separation between the Fletcherian and Shaksperean parts, the 
probabilit}' that there is little or no revision of Shakspere by 
Fletcher, and the content of each man's work, all argue against 
the theory that Fletcher finished a play which Shakspere began ^ 
and support the a priori probability of collaboration pure and 
simple. 

To sum up the conclusions of our discussion : Heniy VIII 
was probably first acted at the Globe theater June 29, 18 13, 
and was probably written shortly before that time by Shak- 
spere and Fletcher. The ' 'em-them ' test corroborates the usual 
verse-tests in separating their work distinctly, and the most 
natural conclusion from an examination of their shares seems 
to be that they worked in direct collaboration. 

THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN. 

Date. First quarto, 1634. " Presented at the Blackfriars 
by the King's Maiesties servants, with great applause: written 
by the memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Elctchcr, 
and Mr. William Shakspeare, Gent." It was entered S. R. 
April 3, 1634 for John Waterson. 

Mr. Fleay, who formerly had an elaborate theory dating the 
play in 1625,^ notes in his Chronicle of the Drajua that the play 
must date about 16 10. 

The date seems to me fixed with reasonable certainty from 
the borrowing of an anti-masque from Beaumont's Masque of 
the Inner Temple and Gray^ s Inn, presented Feb. 20, 1613.^ 

The description of this dance in the Masque is as follows: 
"The second Anti-masque rush in, dance their measure, and 
"as rudely depart; consisting of a Pedant, May lyord. May 
"Lady; Servingman, Chambermaid; a Country Clown or 
"Shepherd, Country Wench; an Host, Hostess; a He-Baboon, 
"She-Baboon; a He-Fool, She-Fool, ushering them in. All 

^See Mr. Spedding's ingenious theory to this effect. N. S. S. 
Transactions, 1874. 

"^ Life of Shaks. p. 189, seq. 

3 See The Two Noble Kinsmen, ed. Harold Littledale, N. S. S. 
Series II, i, 8, 15. London, 1876-1885. lutroduction, pp. 54, 55. 

44 



" these persons, apparelled to the life, Men issuing out of one 
"side of the boscage, and the Women from the other. The 
"music was extremely well-fitted, having such a spirit of 
" country jollit}', as can hardly be imagined; but the perpetual 
" laughter and applause was above the music." ^ 

Now this masque was exceedingly well received. "The 
"dance likewise was of the same strain; and the dancers, or 
"rather actors, expressed everyone their part so naturally 
" and aptly, as when a man's eye was caught with this one, 
" and then passed on to the other, he could not satisfy himself 
" which did best. It pleased his Majesty to call for it again 
" at the end, as he did likewise for the first Anti-masque; but 
" one of the Statues by that time was undressed." 

Moreover, this anti-masque was a decided innovation.^ In 
preceding anti-masques, which had been in vogue only since 
1608, the costumes of the dancers had all been of one sort, as 
in the dance of satyrs in Jonson's Masque of Obcro7i. Beau- 
mont first introduced the fashion of having various characters 
and costumes. Moreover, as Dr. Soergel has also pointed out, 
instead of mere " antic gesticulation " the dancers also in their 
mimickery now showed a kind of dramatic action; thus the^^ 
are called "dancers, or rather actors." The innovation in 
varying characters and costumes is alluded to in the introduc- 
tion to the Masque^ and in a description of it in Stow's Annals.^ 

In the Two Noble Kinsmen (III. 5) this anti-masque is re- 
peated. The schoolmaster and his troop are introduced into 
the action, they meet the mad daughter of the jailor and they 
dance before Theseus and his lords and ladies. The connec- 
tion with Beaumont's anti-masque is, however, unmistakable. 

The schoolmaster thus introduces the dancers: 

" I first appeare, though rude, and raw, and muddy, 
To speak before thy noble grace, this tenner 
At whose great feete I offer up my penner. 

1 Works of Beaumont and Fletcher. Ed. Routledge, II, 688. 

"^ Die Englischen Maslienspiele. Soergel, 1882, p. 52. 

^"Then Mercury for his part, brings forth an anti-masque all of 
spirits or divine; but yet not of one kind or livery fbecause that had 
been so much in use heretofore) but, as it were, in consort, like to 
broken music" . . . [this dance] giveth fit occasion to new and 
strange varieties both in the music and paces." This was the first 
anti-masque (four Naiades, five Hyades, four Cupids, and four statues 
of gold and silver). The dance copied in the play is (icscribed as " a 
May dance, or rural dance, consisting likewise not of any suited per- 
sons, but of a confusion or commixture of all such persons as are 
natural and proper for country sports. This is the second anti-masque." 

'^Stow. p. 917. The first anti-masque is described as "of a strange 
and different fashion from the others, both in habit and manners, and 
very delectable ;" and the second, " a rurall or country mask, consist- 
ing of many persons, men and women, being all in sundry habits, being 
likewise as strange, variable, and delightful." 

45 



The next the Lord of May, and Lady bright, 
The Chambermaid, and Servingman by night 
That seeke out silent hanging ; Then mine Host 
And his fat Spouse, that welcomes to their cost 
The gauled Traveller, and with a beckning 
Informes the Tapster to inflame the reckning ; 
Then the beast eating Clowne. and next the Voole, 
The Baviani with long tayle, and eke long toole. 
Cum multis aliijs that make a dance 
Say I, and all shall presently advance.'"^ 

Not only are all these the same personages which appear in 
Beaumont's Masque; in the pla)^ as in the masque they per- 
form a country May- dance. ^ 

There can be but one conclusion from this resemblance. 
The anti-masque, probably performed by actors from the public 
companies, was an entirely novel and very successful part of 
Beaumont's Masque of Ihe Inner Temple ; and it is inconceivable 
that this anti-masque should have been introduced into that 
notable court entertainment after having been staled at the 
public theaters. On the contrary, it is entirely probable that 
Fletcher introduced into his play a variation of a dance which 
had won a great success in a court masque. It is also probable 
that he used this anti-masque shortly after the court entertain- 
ment while the novelty and success of this dance were common 
talk. A few years later, other anti-masques would have been 
performed at the theater.^ 

There is no evidence to contradict this evidence for a 1613 
date.* Mr. Fleay notes that "from 1626 to 1639 Waterson 
[publisher of the first quarto of 1634] published plays, and 
whenever he enters the author's name does so correctly," " and 

^ " Bavian. Babion {Cynthia^ s Revels, I, i), or Babian, a man dressed 
upas a baboon." Littledale. " Bavian, a figure in Morris dance dressed 
as baboon." Dyce. The comparison between this passage and the 
masque, of course indicates that ' Bavian ' is the baboon. Yet Mr. 
Fleay {Chr. I, 192) says: "the Bavian (Batavian) of III, 5, is surely 
the same as "the strange Indian" of Henry S, V, 3, 1613, and the 
' Catalan of strange nature ' of Rain Alley, c 1609." 

2 III, 5. Littledale's reprint of the quarto. 

^ The schoolmaster calls the dance a Morris and asks for a May pole. 

*The actors, too, who performed at court were probably utilized in 
the performance at the theater. 

^In Emilia's speech over the two pictures, she savs of Arcite, (IV, 
2, 43) 

" Thou art a changling to him, a mere gipsy." 

This, Mr. Fleay says {Chr. I, 191) "surely was written after The 
Changling and The Spaiiish Gipsy were produced in 1621." So he 
thinks the line points to a late revision. It seems improbable that 
there is any reference to the plays. 

^Waterson entered ten plays in these years and assigned plays to 
Fletcher, Massinger, and Davenant correctly. See Fleay. Life Shaks. 
p. 328, seq. 

46 



therefore concludes that ' ' he honestly repeated the Informa- 
tion given him." Whether this information was correct or 
not, it indicates that the play was thought to have been 
written before Shakspere's retirement from London. If the 
inscription on the title page is correct, 1613 is the most probable 
date for Sliak.spere's work and it is also a probable date for 
Fletcher's collaboration since Beaumont apparently ceased 
writing with him in 1611-12.-' 

Mr. lyittledale's conjecture, then, that the play dates shortly 
after the performance of the masque (Feb. 20, 161 3), is almost 
certainly correct.'^ 

Atdhorship. The onl}' external evidence that Shakspere and 
Fletcher wrote the play is the explicit statement of the quarto 
of 1634. The publisher Waterson seems to have been trust- 
worthy, and there is no reason to think that in 1634 Shak- 
spere's name would have helped to sell a play of Fletcher's 
whose plays had not then been collected in a folio. The main 
external evidence against Shakspere's authorship is the fact 
that the play does not appear in the folio of 1623, but Pericles 
was also omitted and Troihis and Cressida irregularly inserted. 
In 1 69 1, Langbaine gave the authorship as stated in the 
quarto of 1634, and there is no direct external evidence against 
it. 

No one now questions Fletcher's authorship,^ but the author- 
ship of the non-Fletcherian portion of the play is still a much 
vexed question. It is a question which probably will always 
remain a matter of opinion, for it does not admit of complete 
demonstration. So far as Shakspere's authorship can be de- 
monstrated, Mr. Ivittledale has accomplished the task, and 
one's opinion on the subject can rest on no better authority. 

Proceeding on the hypothesis that Shakspere and Fletcher 
were the authors, we find that the division of the play between 

^ Mr. Oliphant has an astonishing comment on this point. Englische 
Studien, 15, p. 326. " If, as is likely, Fletcher's 

" sure he cannot 
Be so unmanly as to leave me here! 
If he do, maids will not so easily 
Trust men again." T. N. K. II, 5. 

be a gird at Beaumont's 

"if he deceive me thus 
A woman will not easily trust a man." 

Coxcomb, I, 5. 

it is not improbable that Fletcher's alliance with Shakspere followed 
a quarrel with his old friend." One may safely assure Mr. Oliphant 
that it is not a gird. 

2 The borrowing of the anti-masque and the consequent determina- 
tion of the date of the play are important in connection with my con- 
jecture in regard to the dance of satyrs in the Winter's Tale. See p. 32. 

^Delius (Jahrbuch, XIII) attributed the play to an unknown author. 

47 



the two presents many difficulties. Confident though we ma3'' 
be that many passages are by Shakspere, there are other pas- 
sages, as in the case of almost any of his plays, which are not 
saliently characteristic. Moreover the parts are by no means 
as distinct as in Henry VIII ; but in the Shaksperean scenes 
there are sometimes indubitable bits of Fletcher's work, and 
in the Fletcherian scenes one sometimes suspects Shakspere' s 
touch. 

Nevertheless, the different verse-tests have shown that cer- 
tain scenes possess the metrical characteristics of Shakspere' s 
later work and certain other scenes, the entirely different char- 
acteristics of Fletcher's versification. The ' 'em-them ' test 
also confirms the generally accepted division. In applying 
this test I have followed Mr. Littledale's division, but some 
details must be noted. The last forty lines of Act V, scene 3, 
Mr. Littledale thinks Fletcher had a hand in,^ and there can 
be little question of it; these lines, therefore, I have not in- 
cluded in Shakspere' s part. The last twenty lines of Act I, 
scene 4, are credited by Mr. Littledale, together with the rest 
of the scene, to Shakspere; but in these lines there seem to be 
sure indications of Fletcher. 

"Then like men use 'em 
The verj' lees of such, millious of rates 
Exceeds the wiue of others: all our surgions 
Conveut iu their behoofs, our richest balmes, 
Rather than uiggard, wast: Theire lives concerne us 
Much more than Thebs is worth ; rather than have 'em 
Freed of this plight, and in their morning state, 
Sound and at liberty, I would 'em dead ; 
But, forty thousand fold, we had rather have 'em 
Prisoners to us than death." ^ 

The use of 'em in this passage is a sure indication of Fletcher, 
and the versification looks as if he had a hand in it. The 
remaining dozen lines sound more like Shakspere, but the 
whole passage seems at least retouched or interpolated by 
Fletcher. 

These two passages which show definite signs of Fletcher's 
manner will be kept from Shakspere's part.' The two prose 
scenes will also be noted apart; for, although they are gener- 
ally assigned to Shakspere, there are of course, no scientific 
tests as in the case of verse. Other scenes, in which Mr. Little- 
dale thinks Shakspere's work has been retouched hy Fletcher, 
or in which (I, 2,) Mr. Hickson thinks that Fletcher's work 
was revised by Shakspere, are left intact as in Mr. Littledale's 

^See Littledale. Introductiou, p. 66. 

21,4,28-37. 

^The first 17 lines of V, i, are almost surely by Fletcher, and so as- 
signed b}' Littledale. There are also some evidence of Fletcher in 11 
1-37 of I, I. 



table. This is necessary because the critics have not settled 
on definite passages as interpolations or divisions. 
Shakspere's Part. 





THEM. 


LINES. 


'KM. 


LINES. 


TOTAL LINES. 


I. I. 


4 


50, 76, 146, 195 


2 


59. 114 


235 


I. 2. 


I 


32 


I 


34 


lib 


I- 3- 


2 


21,41 


I 


22 


97 


I. 4a. 


3 


7. 17.20 







28 1-28 


III. I. 


2 


52,52 







123 s.k 


III. 2. 


I 


15 







38 


V. lb. 


2 


105, 108 







156 17-173 


V. 3a. 












104 


V. 4- 







I 


12 


137 


Total. 


15 




5 


. 


1034 



Fletcher's Part. 













NUMBER LINES 




THEM. 


LINES. 


'EM. 


LINES. 


IN SCENE. 


I- 5- 












6F1. (?) 


II. .. 







ID 


12, 13, 17, 24, 34, 65, 

129, 251, 265, 274. 


279 


II. 3. 







I 


2. 


83 


II. 4. 












33 


II. 5- 












64 


II. 6. 












39 


III. 3. 


I 


23 







54 


III. 4. 












26 


III. 5- 







I 


152. 


159 


III. 6. 







10 


183, 189, 190, 213, 2X9, 
223,251,253,277,288. 


308 


IV. I. 


2 


12, 102 




89, 100, 124. 


150 


IV. 2. 


I 


72 


II 


25, 40, 65, 66,69, 114. 
133, 134, 143. 149. 152. 


156 


V. I a. 







2 


I, 7- 


17 11 1-17 


V. 2. 












112 


Total. 


4 




38 




i486 



Passages retouched by Fletcher. 





THEM. 


LINES. 


'EM. 


LINES. 


NUMBER LINES 
IN SCENE. 


I. 4b. 
V. 3 b. 


I 



38 


5 
2 


29. 33, 35, 36, 37- 
128, 133. 


21 11 28-49 
42 11 104-146 



Prose Scenes. 



II. I. 

IV. 3. 



28, 40, 53 



23, 26, 44. 



49 



Summary. The two passages retouched by Fletcher ought, 
perhaps, to be added to his part, and the two prose scenes to 
Shakspere's. With the prose scenes Shakspere's part would 
contain i8 thems, 8 'ems; without the prose scenes 15 
thems, 5 'ems. In the Shaksperean part of Henry VIII (1168 
lines) there are 17 thems and 5 'ems.^ In the Fletcherian 
part of the Two Noble Kinsmen with the added passages, there 
are 5 thems and 45 'ems; without those two passages 4 thems 
and 38 'ems. In Henry VIII, there are 4 thems and 57 'ems."^ 

The "em-them' test thus confirms the assignment of the 
play to Shakspere and Fletcher and the approximate accuracy 
of its division between the two. The test does not, however, 
indicate that the division by Scenes is as exact as in Henry 
VIII. The 'ems and thems do not happen to be distribu- 
ted evenly through the play, and often none occur in a scene. 
A division entirely by scenes, including the prose scenes and 
the passages revised or rew-ritten by Fletcher in the Shak- 
sperean part, would give Shakspere 19 thems and 15 'ems. 
This large number of 'ems at once suggests Fletcher's hand; 
and furthermore, the presence of 'ems offers a specific basis 
for my conjecture that I, 4, 28-49 is retouched by Fletcher and 
confirms Mr. lyittledale's suggestions that IV, 3, 1-17 is en- 
tirely by Fletcher and V, 3, 104-146 at least revised by him. 
Doubtless, as Mr. Littledale suspects, other passages show 
traces of Shakspere's revision. The ' 'em-them ' test is also 
serviceable in disproving the theory that Massinger wrote the 
non-Fletcherian part,^ and there is no evidence for any other 
author except Shakspere.* 

iln Winter's Tale 2,1 thems, 8 'ems. In the Tempest 2,^ tho^ms, 13 'ems. 

2 In Bo7iduca 6 thems, 83 'ems. 

3 See Mr. Boyle's papers. Englische Studien, IV, 34, and N. S. S. 
Transactions 1880-86, p. 371; The non-Fletcherian part which Mr. 
Boyle gives to Massinger is as follows: I, i, 4 thems, 2 'ems ; I, 2, 34-84, 
I 'em ; I, 3, 2 thems, i 'em ; I, 4 and 5, 4 thems and 5 'ems ; II, i, 77- 
118 (including part of II, 2, according to our notation), 3 thems, 4 'ems ; 
III, I, 2 thems ; III, 2, i them ; IV, 3, none ; V, i, 2 thems, 2 'ems ; V, 
3, 2 'ems; V, 4, i 'em. Total 18 thems, 16 'ems. There are 'ems in 
almost every scene. The presence of so many 'ems is enough to dis- 
prove Massinger's authorship, unless Mr. Boyle's argument from 
parallel passages appeals with very much more force to others than it 
does to me. The fixing of the date at 1613, in fact, destroys the main 
basis for the Massinger argument which depended on an assumed date 
of about 1626. 

* Mr. Fleay advances one argument for Beaumont {Chr. 1, 191,) from 
the use of carve which is paralleled in Beaumont's Remedy of Love. 

IV, 5. " Carve her, drink to her," etc. 

Remedy of Love . " Drinkto him, carve him, give him compliment." 

"This use of carve is not common," says Mr. Fleay, but it seems 
to have been a regular Elizabethan idiom. Schmidt's Lexicon gives 
two examples in Shakspere of this meaning — " to show great courtesy 
and affability." 

See also Hamlet I, 3, 20, and Othello II, 3, 173, and Lyly's Euphues, 
ed. Arber, p. 55. " I mean not to be mine owne carver." 

50 



Collaboration. In conjecturing that the play was written in 
direct collaboration between Shakspere and Fletcher, we cannot 
avail ourselves, as in Henry VIII, of the argument that the 
two parts are distinctly separated. At the same time the 
division is fairly distinct. The great majority of Fletcher's 
scenes were almost certainly written by him alone, and Shak- 
spere' s scenes show definite additions only at the beginnings 
or ends. They show no evidence of general revision by another 
writer. Eleven of the scenes as marked in the quarto of 1634, 
seem to have been mainly composed by Shakspere; and thirteen 
scenes, as marked in the quarto, seem to have been almost 
entirely the work of Fletcher. 

Moreover, the strong probability that the play was first acted 
in 161 3 makes the prima facie likelihood of direct collaboration 
the same as in the case of Heujy VIII. In 161 2-13 Shak- 
spere seems to have been occupied with other affairs as well as 
play-writing, but there is no evidence that he had left lyondon or 
severed his connection with the King's men. Fletcher had by 
that time achieved eminent success through his plays written 
in collaboration with Beaumont for the King's men and b}' 
1 61 2 was apparentl}- no longer writing with Beaumont. On 
the face of things collaboration between Shakspere and Fletcher 
is not at all improbable. 

Before looking directly at the separate scenes for evidence, we 
must note one objection often urged against collaboration. If 
Shakspere had seen the finished play, he would not — so some 
urge — have tolerated the trash of the underplot.^ It is at least 
probable that Shakspere did see the finished play in 1613; but 
this probability aside, the underplot is certainly no greater 
trash than that of Pericles which he managed to endure. The 
conception that Shakspere acted as a schoolmaster and Fletcher 
as a pupil, has no foundation whatever. Even if Shakspere 
planned the play, there is no reason to suppose that he would 
have dictated to the younger poet. 

The feeling that Shakspere would not have tolerated the 
underplot is, however, accentuated b)'- the supposition that this 
underplot contains imitations, and very poor ones, of Holofernes 
in Love' s Labour' s Lost'^ and Ophelia in Hamlet.^ In respect to 
Holofernes, I do not think there was any imitation in mind. 
The scene exhibiting the schoolmaster and his troop of enter- 
tainers received its suggestion from the Masque of the Inner 
Temple, as we have seen, and probably not at all from so old a 
play as Love' s Labour' s Lost. In fact, if we want to go back 
to the original of the situation of a schoolmaster arranging 
a May-day entertainment, we must go back at least as early as 

^See Littledale. Introduction. 

2T. N. K. Ill, 5. 

^See the scenes in which the jailer's daughter appears. 

51 



Sir Philip Sidney's May Lady, 1578, when the pedant Rombus 
appears. In the same way, the mad girl with her songs and 
childish talk was a conventional stage character, appearing 
in Lyly's the Woman m the Moon, the original Hajulet, and 
Hoffman as well as the final Hamlet. 

The case here, however, is different from that of the school- 
master. Hamlet was a popular pla}^ and the situation of 
Ophelia must have suggested the description of the mad girl 
floating on the water amid the flowers and speaking love posies 
and singing "willow, willow, willow."^ We must, however, 
note that there is no imitation of Ophelia's character, the only 
distinct imitation is of the circumstances of her death. Now, 
this imitation, so far from being an objection to collaboration 
seems to me readily explainable on the supposition of collabo- 
ration. Shakspere, with his usual economy of invention ^ 
may have determined in planning the play to introduce a mad 
girl; and Fletcher working out the suggestion was fully 
capable of doing the rest — trash and all. In spite of the 
trash, the conversation of V, 2, was probably very pleasing to 
both the groundlings and lordlings of Blackfriars. 

Returning to the evidence for collaboration, we must examine 
the work of each author. In the underplot dealing with the 
jailer's daughter, Shakspere is assigned three and Fletcher 
seven scenes. Act II, scene i, by Shakspere introduces the 
jailer, the wooer, and the daughter, who shows that she is 
alread)' a little in love with the prisoner Palamon. The next 
scene by Shakspere (III, 2,) is a soliloquy by the daughter 
who has freed Palamon and is seeking him. She is alone in 
the woods and fears lest she go mad. The last scene of the 
underplot by Shakspere (IV, 3,) represents the jailer, wooer, 
and doctor consulting over a cure for the girl who, it now ap- 
pears, is insane. The scene also introduces the girl with mad 
talk and songs. 

In Fletcher's part of the underplot. Act II, scene 3, intro- 
duces a crowd of country people a-maying. Act II, scene 4, is 
a soliloquy by the jailer's daughter (introduced earlier by 
Shakspere) who is not 3^et mad and who resolves to free Pala- 
mon. Act II, scene 5, is another soliloquy from which it ap- 
pears that she is about to free him. In Act III, scene 4, she 
is insane (first suggested in Shakspere's part). Act III, scene 
5, includes the morris dance and another appearance of the 
mad girl. Act IV, scene i, includes the description of the 
girl's escape from a watery grave and another appearance of 
the mad girl. Act V, scene 2, represents the wooer curing the 

IT. N. K. IV, I. 

2 See William Shakspere by Barrett Wendell, 1894, pp. 87, 422 et 
passim. 



52 



girl of her madness after the manner prescribed by the doctor 
in Shakspere's scene. 

Two things are plain from this analysis. First, each writer 
understood the outline of the plot, for scenes in each part de- 
pend on scenes in the other. Second, it is almost impossible 
that Shakspere should have written his three scenes first and 
left the underplot in that shape, for the scenes have neither 
connection with each other nor importance by themselves. 
The most natural conclusion seems to be that the two parts 
were written by two dramatists who had the plot well outlined 
and each of whom took certain scenes to write. 

In the development of the main plot, Shakspere is assigned 
eight scenes and Fletcher five.^ Of Shakspere's part the 
first four scenes of the first act deal largely with the widowed 
queens and Theseus. They serve also as an introduction to 
the main action, presenting all the leading characters including 
Palamon and Arcite. This act, however, with the kneeling 
queens, the wedding masque, and the " funerall solempnity," 
is from a stage p(^int of view good as a spectacle rather than 
as an introduction to the action. In Act III, scene i, Arcite 
(who has been freed from prison in Fletcher's part) and Pala- 
mon (who has escaped in Fletcher's part) meet and arrange 
to fight. In Act V, scene i, there are the prayers of the two 
kinsmen and Emilia before the final tournament (the action 
having gone on to this point in Fletcher's scenes). Here again 
the scene is spectacular. In Act V, scene 3, the fight goes on 
behind the arras while Emilia awaits her fate; this scene pre- 
senting the culmination of the main action. In the next scene 
(V, 4,) the play is brought to an end with the rescue of Pala- 
mon, the death of Arcite, and the closing speech of Theseus. 

Of Fletcher's scenes. Act II, scene 2, represents Palamon 
and Arcite in prison, the entrance of Emilia in the garden, 
the quarrel of the two lovers, and the removal of Arcite. This 
is the real beginning of the main action. In Act II, scene 3, 
Arcite is free and about to go to court. In Act II, scene 5, he 
attains success there. In Act III, scene 3, Arcite brings food 
and files to Palamon (according to the agreement made in the 
Shaksperean part). In Act III, scene 6, the two kinsmen arm 
each other and fight, whereupon they are interrupted by The- 
seus and his train, exposed to death by Palamon 's confession, 
and saved by Emilia's intercession. This is, perhaps, the most 
effective stage situation of the play. In Act IV, scene 2, Emilia 
debates over the pictures of her two lovers, and a messenger 
describes the combatants; this scene preparing the way for the 
main action of the last act by Shakspere. 

1 1 omit I, 5, (onl}' 6 lines and a song) because the authorship is very 
doubtful. II, 3, (Fletcher) deals with both the main and the under- 
plot. 

53 



From this analysis of the main action it will be seen that the 
scenes by one author depend closely on those by the other. So 
intimate is this inter-relation of the two parts that we safely 
conclude that each author was well acquainted with the plan 
of the whole action and the arrangement by scenes and situa- 
tions. As in the case of the underplot, it is almost impos- 
sible that the Shaksperean part was written before and inde- 
pendently of the Fletcherian part. 

On that supposition we should have to believe that after 
Shakspere had planned the play in detail and written a whole 
introductory act with some elaboration, he then wrote a few 
disconnected and relatively unimportant scenes for the under- 
plot and one scene of the main plot, the meeting of Palamon 
and Arcite in the forest, but left the opening and development 
of the main action untouched. Then, leaving the further de- 
velopment of the main action still untouched, we are to sup- 
pose, that he went on to finish with manifest elaboration the 
final act in the play. Two or three bits of the underplot, the 
first act, the last act, and one intermediate scene of the main 
action — however else the plaj^maj^ have been written, one feels 
fairly certain that it was not begun in this way. 

The date, 1613, indeed destroys one conjecture often adopted 
that the play was left unfinished by Shakspere at his death 
and was finished by Fletcher at a late date in his career.-^ Our 
examination of Shakspere' s share of the play makes it equally 
improbable that Shakspere planned and began the play about 
1610, and for some reason turned it over in its incomplete form 
to Fletcher who completed it. Fletcher does, indeed, seem to 
have made some additions and in some places to have retouched 
Shakspere's work. He may, probably enough, have given 
the final touches to the play. Moreover in a plaj^ which w^as 
still popular in 1634 and which had therefore been in the stock 
of the King's men for twelve years of Fletcher's life and for 
nine years after his death, there is a manifest possibility that 
the text was subject to some alteration and revision. 

The part assigned to Shakspere is, however, with the ex- 
ceptions of these possible alterations, definitely marked off by 
the scenes of the first quarto. The scenes which Shakspere 
wrote show a knowledge of the whole course of the dramatic 
action. They are, how^ever, entirely disconnected by them- 
selves but are closely connected with some of Fletcher's scenes. 
Still further, each scene by itself is complete and elaborate, 
utterly unlike unfinished work. It does not seem possible, 
therefore, that these scenes represent a play which he had 
begun and left thus unfinished. Fletcher's scenes in the same 
way are disconnected except when taken in connection with 
Shakspere's; and each one in itself is complete and well elabo- 

^See Dyce. 

54 



rated. These considerations make it probable that, after having 
made a fairly detailed outline of the play, each writer took 
certain scenes and, to all intents, completed those scenes after 
his own fashion. As in Henry VIII, the method of composi- 
tion seems to have been collaboration, pure and simple. 

CARDENIO. 

It was entered S. R. Sept. 9, 1653, by Humphrey Moseley 
and described as "by Fletcher and Shakspere. ' ' It was not 
printed. 

It was on Warburton's list, but nothing is certainly known 
of it.^ The ascription to Shakspere, whether correct or not, 
indicates that it was an old play, dating before his death. In 
May, 161 3, Hemings was paid for a performance at court by 
the King's men of Cardenno, and in June, 1613, for Cardenna. 
These three, Cardenio — Cardenno — Carderuia are probably the 
same play, and all the evidence we have of authorship is 
Moseley 's assignment to Fletcher and Shakspere. 

We have, then, three plays — two probably acted for the first 
time in 1613, and the third certainly as early as 161 3 — for 
which there is evidence that they were written by Shakspere 
and Fletcher. In the case of the two extant plays this evidence 
has seemed reasonably conclusive, and the evidence for direct 
collaboration hardly less so. The evidence on these matters 
in one play corroborates the evidence in the case of the other; 
and the evidence in the case of Cardenio, though slight, is in 
harmony with our conclusions in the cases of Henry VIII and 
the Tivo Noble Kinsmen. On the whole it seems decidedly 
probable that in the course of the years 1611-1613 Shakspere 
and Fletcher were writing plays in collaboration for the King's 
men. 

The important bearing of this conclusion on our main investi- 
gation is at once evident. We are trying to demonstrate that 
in the years 1 608-1 1 Shakspere was influenced by the romances 
of Beaumont and Fletcher; and in the years 1611-1613 we 
find that Shakspere wrote two and possibly three plays in col- 
laboration with Fletcher. If Shakspere was influenced by 
any one in the last years of his dramatic career, it was most 
likely by Fletcher. 

A fairly strong case, too, might be made for saying that in 
Henry VIII and the Two Noble Kinsmeyi, Fletcher's influence 
rather than Shakspere' s is predominant. It may at least be 
noted that while Henry VIII is a chronicle history more in 

1 For a refutation of Mr. Fleay's theory that the play was identical 
with Love's Pilgrimage, see the discussion of the date of that play. 
Attempts have also been made to identify it with A Very Woman and 
the Double Falsehood. 

55 



Shakspere's than Fletcher's method, Fletcher's best scenes 
both in stage efiectiveness and dramatic power are as notable 
as Shakspere's. In the Tivo Noble Kinsmen, in spite of the 
trash of the underplot and the weakness of his characterization, 
Fletcher seems to have contributed most largely to the drama- 
tic development of the main action. Much has been said of 
the power of Shakspere's partnership in bringing out Fletcher's 
best work, but something also might be said of Fletcher's in- 
fluence in these plays on Shakspere.-^' In a case, however, 
where our conclusions rest to such an extent on conjecture, 
it is not worth while to use these conclusions for inductions in 
regard to the mutual influence of the two collaborators. 

Admitting that there is much in the discussion of these two 
plays which remains conjectural, we shall still insist on the probe 
ability of our main conclusion that Shakspere and Fletcher col- 
laborated. We may also again emphasize the fact that the proba- 
bility of this collaboration greatly strengthens the prima fade 
likehhood that Shakspere was directly influenced by the Beau- 
mont-Fletcher romances. 



^ Mr. Sidney Lee is even willing to find a direct Fletcherian influence 
on Shakspere's style. Speaking of Wolsey's farewell to Cromwell, 
he says : "It recalls at every point the style of Fletcher, and nowhere 
that of Shakespeare's we are driven to the alternative con- 
clusion that the noble valediction was by Shakespeare, who in it gave 
proof of his versatility by echoing in a glorified key the habitual strain 
of Fletcher, his colleague and virtual successor." Life, pp. 262, 263. 



56 



CHAPTER V. 

Chronology of the Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

In arranging a chronology of the plays attributed to Beau- 
mont and Fletcher, we may conveniently divide them in three 
groups: I, plays produced before the end of 1611; II, plays 
1612-1618, inclusive; III, plays produced after 1618. The 
first group is the important one for us. Shakspere's three 
romances cannot date later than 161 1 , so no plays by Beaumont 
and Fletcher after that date can have influenced Shakspere, but 
any plays before that may have done so. I have taken Mr. 
Fleay's examination ^ as the basis of my investigation, and in 
group I my results differ radically from his. In groups II and 
III the chronology is by no means so uncertain as in group I, 
and I have added little to Mr. Fleay's results. My conclusions 
in regard to plays of those groups are given without discus- 
sion, except in a few cases of special significance. 

In group I we shall first consider eight plays which date 
certainly before the close of 161 1 and then eight others which 
are conjecturally placed in that period. In examining Four 
Plays in One, Cupid's Revenge, and Thierry and Theodoret, it 
will be necessary to anticipate some of the matter of Chapter 
VII on the general character of the Beaumont- Fletcher ro- 
mances. 

When a reference is made to Mr. Fleay's conclusions without 
page number, it is always to the discussion of the play under 
consideration in his Chronicle of the Drama. In the same way 
a reference merely to Dyce always refers to his note on the 
passage under discussion. 

/. First Group. Plays Before the End of 1611. 

The Woma7i Hater. Licensed for publication by Sir George 
Buc, 20 May, 1607. First quarto, 1607, "as it hath been 
lately acted by the Children of Paules." 1648, quarto " by J. 
Fletcher." 1649, by F. Beaumont and J. Fletcher. 

Although the statement on the title page cannot be taken to 
prove much concerning the date of the original performance, 
it would seem to indicate that the play was produced not very 
long before May, 1607.^ Eight of the Paul's boys plays were 

^Chr. I, p. 164, seq. 

^A Mad World My Masters, by Middleton ; entered 4 Oct., 1608; 

57 



licensed in 1607/ showing that the company broke up at about 
that time. The last play which we know that they produced 
was the Abuses, before the King, 30 July, 1606.^ 

Mr. Fleay places the date of the first representation at Easter, 
April 5, 1607, on account of the two allusions. "A favorite 
on a sudden" (I, 3), he thinks refers to Robert Carr, after- 
wards Earl of Somerset, who was first introduced to the King's 
notice at a tilt which occurred March 24, 1607. Carr was at 
this time a mere page, brought forward by Sir James Hays, 
and was accidentally injured. The King was attracted by the 
boy's beauty and visited him during his confinement from the 
injury. Carr did not, however, become notorious as a great 
favorite until a couple of years later; evidently between March 
24 and April 5 there could hardly have been occasion for so 
positive an allusion. Moreover the play contains a number of 
allusions to favorites and new-made lords, and James had several 
favorites before Carr.'' 

Mr. Fleay 's second allusion, " another inundation " (III, i), 
he takes to refer to the rise of the Severn in Somersetshire and 
Gloucestershire Jan. 20, 1607.'* The expression seems more 
likely to refer to Noah's flood. In expressing surprise at 
Gondarino's sudden change, Oriana says: 

" Sure we shall have store of larks, the skies will 
Not hold up loug; I should have look'd as soon 
For frost in the Dog-daj's, or another inundation, 
As hoped this strange conversion above miracle." 

1 find only one passage which helps at all to decide the date. 
Beaumont and Fletcher were friends of Jonson, as we have 
seen, at least as early as 1607. In 1605-6 the Paul's boys 
were under the management of E. Kirkham who had been with 
the Queen's children of the revels and who had apparently 
left at the time of their trouble over Eastward Ho, 1604-5.^ 
Chapman's Bussy D' Ambois was produced by the Paul's boys, 
perhaps about 1605.*' A friend of Jonson 's and a writer for 
the Paul's boys must have been acquainted with the circum- 
stances of the imprisonment of Jonson, Chapman, and Marston, 

4to 1608 — "it hath bin lately in Action by the Children of Paules." 
It is dated by Fleay in 1606. The Roaring Girl; 4to 1611, "lately 
acted on Fortune Stage, is dated by Fleay 1604-5. 

'^ Northiuard Ho, Aug. 6; Phoeftix, May 9; Michaelmas Term, May 
15 ; Woman Hater, May 5 ; Bussy D'Ambois, June 5 ; Trick to Catch 
the Old One, Oct. 7; all in 1607. Mad World My Masters, Oct. 4, 
1608. Northward Ho was published in 1607. 

2 Nichols, IV, p. 1074. 

^ For Carr's early career, cf. Nichols, II, p. 411-415, II, 161. Ill, 1076. 
Carr was not knighted until Dec. 24, 1607. 
*Stow, p. 889. 
5Chr. I, 59, 60. 
«Chr. I, 60. 

58 



and their danger of losing their ears.^ The following passage 
in the prologue seems reminiscent of that; at any rate I know 
nothing else it would be so likely to refer to. 

" Or if there be any lurking amongst you in corners with 
' ' table-books, who have some hope to find fit matter to feed 

"his malice on, let them clasp them up and slink away, 

"or stay and be converted. For he who made this play means 
" to please auditors so, as he may be an auditor himself here- 
" after, and not purchase them with the dear loss of his ears." 

All through the play there is ridicule of intelligencers and 
trumped-up charges of treason; and Fletcher's verses to Jon- 
son's Volpone (acted 1605, published 1607) make special men- 
tion of Jonson's foes. The above quotation seems tome likely 
to have been written at a date near that of the troubles referred 
to; and the passage on the title page also fits a date as early as 
1605-6. 

The play contains several burlesque imitations of Hamlet'^ 
and in other places apparently parodies contemporary writers. 
There is at least nothing in the play to contradict 1605-6 as 
the probable date of composition and presentation. 

The Knight of the Burning Pestle. First quarto 161 3. Walter 
Burre, the publisher, in his preface addressed to Robert Keysar, 
makes a number of statements about the play. ' It was writ- 
ten in eight days; soon after (perhaps because it was so unlike 
its brethren) exposed to the wide world, who utterly rejected 
it. It was succoured from perpetual oblivion by Keysar and by 
him sent to Burre who had fostered it privately these two years 
and now returns it. Perhaps it will be thought to be of the 
race of Don Quixote ; we may both confidently swear it is his 
elder above a year. ' ^ 

Don Qziixote must refer to the translation, entered S. R. 161 1 
and printed 161 2. This date and the statement that Burre had 
kept the play by him two years seem to fix the date at 1610-1 1. 
Mr. Fleay supports 16 10 with several allusions to contemporary 
events in the play; an examination of such allusions, however, 
leaves me rather inclined to place the date several years earlier. 
I shall state first the internal evidence in favor of 16 10 and 
then that which points to an earlier date. 

Several songs in the play* are found in Ravenscroft's collec- 
tions Z'^M/'t/ww^/m (entered S. R. 1609) and Pa m7nelia (entered 

^Chr. I, 8r. II, 346. Jonson was also in prison again in connection 
with Sejanus and was accused of both Popery and treason. See Chr. 
II. P- 347- 

211, I, p. 37: III, I, p. 41 : II, I, p. 34. See Dyce's notes. 

3 Nevertheless, the indebtedness of K. B. P. to Don Quixote is un- 
questionable. 

*I, 4, p. 150, Deuteromelia. II, 4, Deuteromelia. II, 7, Pammelia 
(.Trowl the Black Bowl). These are all merest snatches. 



59 



S. R. 1609). These were, however, collections of songs and 

snatches already familiar. 

"The little child," etc., (Ill, 2,) seems to be the same as 
"the boy of six 3'ears old," etc., of the Alchemist (1610), 
(V. I,). 

"The hermaphrodite" (III, 2,)^ Mr. Fleay thinks is the 
monstrous child born July 31, 1601, at Sandwich. This is a 
very doubtful conjecture. 

The above references^ are at least in harmony with a 1610 
date. The following seem to contradict it. 

' ' This seven years there have been plays at this house. ' ' 
(Induction.) Mr. Fleay places the production of the play at 
Whitefriars, because he thinks the play was acted by the Revels 
children who were at Whitefriars in 16 10. He so placed it in 
his History of the Stage in violence to this passage, for he then 
believed Whitefriars was first opened January' 1610. Later 
Mr. Greenstreet's papers showed that Whitefriars was occupied 
1607-1610; so in the Chr-onicle of the Drama, Mr. Fleay notices 
this passage and from it concludes that the play-laouse in 
Whitefriars must also have been occupied 1604-7. There is 
no evidence that it was so occupied, v Frequent references to 
the children show that the play was produced by a children's 
company. If by the Queen's Revels, the seven years can 
hardly refer to anything except their occupancy of Blackfriars 
from their organization of 1600 to 1607.^ ' If by the Paul's 
boys, the passage again alludes to a period beginning in 1599* 
and ending 1606-7. Judging from what we know of the stage 
history, the passage cannot refer to any theater, if spoken in 
1610; if spoken in 1607, it can refer to Blackfriars or probably 
to the house occupied by the Paul's boys. 

There is an allusion (IV, i,) ^ to the Travails of Three Eng- 

i"The Great Dutchman" (III, 2), of the same passage has not 
been identified. 

■^Mr. Fleay also says the statute of Jan. 7, 1609, is referred to in I, I. 
I can find no statute of that date. Parliament did not meet in that 
year. 

•^ A glance at the first few lines of the induction will convince any 
one that there is no reference to an occupancy by previous companies, 
as Mr. Fleay states. The lease of Blackfriars was taken 1600 (H. of 
S. p. 184,), but the Revels Company was acting before. 

*The date of the reinstatement of Paul's boys is 1599, not 1600. See 
The Stage Quarrel betiveen Ben Jonson and the so-called Poetasters. 

^IV, I. Citizen. " Why so, sir? go and fetch me him then and let 
the Sophy of Persia come and christen him a child." 

Boy. "Believe me, sir, that will not do so well ; 'tis stale; it has 
been had before at the Red Bull. 

Mr. Fleay regards this allusion to the Red Bull, proof of a date as 
late as 1610 (H. of S. 195), because he thinks the Red Bull was not 
used until April 15, 1609. His proof of this is the patent granted 
Queen Anne's players on that day. But the patent (Shak. Soc. Papers 
IV, p. 44) reads " to shewe and exercise publickly as well within their 

60 



lish Brothers, printed 1607 as acted at the Curtain. Mr. Boyle ^ 
notes the allusion, and since the Travails was based on the 
adventures of the three Shirleys and was only of immediate 
interest, he thinks a reference to it would be likely to be con- 
temporary. The play ^ was hurriedly written and at once pub- 
lished and must have soon been superseded in favor, and for 
these reasons Mr. Boyle is inclined to think the reference in 
the Knight of the Burning Pestle fixes the date of that play 
about 1607. 

"Welcome, sir Knight, into my father's court, 
King of Moldavia, unto me Pomponia." (IV, 2.) 

In Nichols (II, 157), we find that in November, 1607, "the 
Turk and the Prince of Moldavia are now going away (from 
lyondon). In Jonson's Epicocne (acted 1609) there is also an 
allusion to the Prince of Moldavia (V, i,), but as Jonson spent 
a year or two on a play this mention corresponds with that in 
NidlQls. The reference in the Burning Pestle, therefore, seems 
to indicate an earlier date than 1610. 

Merrythought, who is constantly singing ditties, recalls 
Valerius in Heywood's Rape of Lucrece, printed 1608, and of 
course acted earlier.^ The Burning Pestle satirizes Heywood's 
plays and his company (Queen's men), but perhaps Beaumont 
in this instance borrowed an idea which had proved a popular 
innovation, or perhaps Hey wood borrowed it from Beaumont. 
In either case 1607-8 becomes the more likely date for the 
Burning Pestle. This is pure conjecture on my part. 

There remain a number of references and allusions which 
give no definite evidence in regard to the date, although con- 
sidered cumulatively they favor the earlier rather than the 
later. 

In the Induction the following plays are mentioned: the 

" nowe usual houses called the Redd Bull, Clerkenwell and the Cur- 
" tayne in Hallowell as alsoe within any Towne Hall," etc. It is diffi- 
cult to conceive how Mr. Fleay concludes from this that on that date 
the company changed from the Curtain to the Bull. One would 
naturally infer that the company had used both theaters for some 
time. There are several references to the Red Bull in the Knight of 
the Burjiing Pestle; and according to Mr. Fleay's theory they indicate 
a date later than 1609. From my interpretation of the 1609 patent, 
they indicate nothing of the kind. 

^Englische Studien, Vol. IX. 

2 See Chr. II, 277. 

■^ Fleay, in curious contradiction with his theory that the Red Bull 
was not opened until 1609, places Lucrece among the plays at the Bull 
1609-13 rather than at the Curtain 1607-9. (H. of S. p. 189.) In the 
Chronicle of the Drama he gives the date of the first quarto correctly, 
1608. Lucrece in modern editions is usually said to have been acted 
at the Red Bull, but I don't know whether the first quarto states this 
or not, as I have not seen a copy. Fleay CH. of S. p. 201,) says the 
Red Bull is mentioned for the first time in the 1635 4to. 

61 



Legend of IVhittingtoyi,^ Life and Death of Sir Thomas Gresham 
with the building of the Royal Exchange ^^ the story of Queen 
Eleanor,^ fane Shore,* and Bold BeauchampsJ' These are all 
old plays, and favorites with the citizen. He asks: "why 
could you not be contented, as well as others, with these?" 
The phrase " as well as others " seems to allude to the Queen's 
men. So far as can be determined these were all plays popular 
during the first few years of the century. 

Musidorus 2M^ feronimo are also alluded to in the Induction. 

Heywood's Four Apprentices is several times ridiculed. The 
citizen says (IV, i), " Read the play of the Four Appreyitices 
where they toss their pikes." The play was printed in 1615, 
but in the preface Heywood describes it as written fifteen or 
sixteen years before. The passage quoted seems to point to 
an earlier edition than that of 16 15, but there is no other indi- 
cation of one. As the citizen is made to speak incorrectly, 
Dyce thinks the passage does not indicate an earlier edition; 
Fleay on the contrary thinks there was one.® Heywood in the 
preface to the 1615 edition, alludes to the resumption of artillery 
practice by the citizens, which took place in 1610; Mr. Fleay, 
therefore, concludes that the preface was written for a 1610 
edition. He also identifies the play with Godfrey of Bulloigne. 
All this is extremely doubtful, and to use it to establish a date 
1610-11 for the Burning Pestle would be a bad case of reason- 
ing in a circle. 

There is considerable burlesque of the Mirrour of Knight- 
hood, printed 1602 (final part), which is also alluded to in the 
Scor?iful Lady. (Ill, i . ) A song" is given which occurs with 
variations and an additional stanza in the Captain. Another 
song^ is quoted in the Woman' s Prize, Monsieur Thomas, Bhirt 
Master Constable, and Lucrece. There is an allusion to the 
battle at Mile End ^ as in Monsieur Thomas. 

IS. R. 1604. 

2 Heywood's If you know not me, you know nobody, 4to, 1605. See 
Chr. I, 292. 

^ The famous chronicle of King Edward /. ( ?) 

^Edward IV (1599). 

^See Chr. I, 287. See also a possible allusion in A Mad World My 
Masters (4to, 1608), Middleton's Works. Ed. Bullen, V, 2, note. 

6 Chr. I, 282. 

''Ill, I. " Tell me, dearest, what is love ? " The Captain, II, 2. 

^jIII, 5. "Go from my window, love, go! " W. P., I, 3. Mon. T., 
Ill, 3. B. M. C, IV, 2. The whole song is one of those added to 
Lucrece. 

^11, 2. "I can assure thee, Michael, Mile End is a goodly matter; 
there has been a pitch field, my child, between naughty Spaniards and 
Englishmen," etc. Blon. Thomas, 111,3. A ballad is mentioned of 
"the Landing of the Spaniards at Bow and bloody battle at Mile 
End." 



62 



There are burlesques of passages in Henry IV,^ Romeo and 
Juliet ^^ and the Spanish Tragedy.^ 

One other passage has a sHght bearing on the date. In I, i, 
the wife asks: " Were you never none of Master Moncaster's 
scholars?"* Dr. Richard Mulcaster was headmaster of St. 
Paul's school 1 596-1 608. 

This reference to Mulcaster and the songs which occur in 
other plays hardly point to one date more than the other. The 
plays referred to by name and the plays burlesqued are all 
plays that were familiar early in the century, but references 
might have been made to them in 1 610 as well as 1607. The 
similarity of the burlesque of contemporary drama to that in 
the JVoj?m?i I/aier -mnst, however, be noticed; and that play 
was surely not later than 1607 and probably dates 1605-6. 

The evidence which we have seen points definitely to 1607 
is not contradicted by anything in the play and gives us a good 
many difiiculties to explain if we adopt the usual 1610-11 date. 
On the other hand, if we assume a 1607 date, we shall have to ' 
assume that Robert Keysar turned the play over to Burre a 
considerable time after its first production and that Burre knew 
nothing personally of its first production. I see no escape 
from the dilemma, but I am inclined to think the 1607 date 
the less objectionable. The play at all events cannot be later 
than 161 1. 

The Faithful Shepherdess. First quarto, undated, but before 
May 1610, when Sir William Skipwith, one of the three per- 
sons to whom it is dedicated, died. 

1 Induction. " By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap, 

To pluck bright honour," etc. 
This is an almost verbatim burlesque of Hotspur's speech, i Hejiry 
IV; III, I. 

V. 3. To a resolv'd mind his home is everywhere. . . 

* * * " Saint George and on, my hearts! " 
— seems reminiscent of Henry's speech before Harfleur, Henry V, III, 
I ; or perhaps of Antonio'' s Revenge, II, i. 

"A wise man's house is wheresoe'er he is wise," etc. 
2 II, I. " Good night, twenty good nights and twenty more, 

And twenty more good nights — that makes three score." 
— seems to be a parody of the balcou}^ scene. 
^The final speech of Ralph's ghost — 

When " I was mortal and my costive corpse 
Did lap up figs and raisins in the strand," — 
is a burlesque of Andrea's ghost. 

*Mr. Fleay comments on the passage quoted, "z. <?., a Paul's boy 
before 1602." Dyce notes that Mulcaster was head master of the 
Merchant Taylor's school, 1561-1586. He was head master of St. 
Paul's school 1596-1608, but his term does not fix the date of this 
reference which might have been made after he had given up teach- 
ing or even after his death, 161 1. For an account of the life of this 
famous schoolmaster, see Dictionary of National Biography. His 
name appears several times in connection with the s-tage history of the 
period. 

63 



Mr. Fleay says that Bonian and Whalley, the publishers, 
are conjoined in the Stationer's Register from Dec. 22, 1608, 
to Sept. 1, 1609; and therefore thinks this quarto is to be 
placed between those dates. Bartholomew Sutter, however, 
seems to have been added to the tw^o other publishers in enter- 
ing the Case is Altered, July 20, 1609.-^ 

In the dedication to Sir Walter Aston, Fletcher speaks of 
' ' the infection, ' ' which may refer specifically to the prevalence 
of the plague, 1608-9, or it may be a general reference to the 
continuance of the plague since the great outbreak in 1603. 
In his commendatory verses, Field speaks of his muse "in 
swaddling clouts;" and his first play, says Mr. Fleay, ^ was 
acted in 1609, but in another place Mr. Fleay gives 16 10 as 
the date of A Woman is a Weathc7'cock} Ben Jonson in 
Drummond's Conversations (161 8) is reported to have said, 
' ' Fletcher and Beaumont ten years since have written the 
Faithfid Shepherdess. ' ' 

Some of Mr. Fleay 's theories which he thinks bear on the 
date of this play may be left to one side,^ but the foregoing 
evidence supports his conclusion that it was first acted (when 
it was a failure) in 1608.''' 

Philaster : or. Love Lies a Bleedi^ig. First quarto, 1620, 
" as acted at the Globe by his Majesties Servants." This was 
apparently a pirated edition. 

In the Scourge of Folly, by John Davies of Hertford, entered 
S. R. Oct. 8, 1610, occurs an epigram*' referring to this play. 

Mr. Fleay makes several different statements about the 
date. In his Life of Shakspcrc,' he says: ''Philaster, which 
contains some passages suggested by this play [Cymbeline] , 
was written in 161 1." In his History of the Stage, ^ he 

iChr. I, 312. 

2Chr. I, 178. 

3Chr. I, 185. 

*The fact that Fielil, Chapman, and Jonson wrote commendatory 
verses for this play, seems to Fleay proof that it was written for the 
Queen's Revels children, because he thinks these men were all con- 
nected with the Revels boys 1608-9. He also thinks the play must be 
dated before July 28, 1608, when he thinks the theaters were closed by 
the plague. We have already discussed the value of these two kinds 
of evidence. The play was doubtless acted by a company of children. 

5 There is no certain early limit. 

^ " To the well-deserving, Mr. John Fletcher." 

" Love lies bleeding, if it should not prove 
His utmost act to show why it doth love. 
Thou being the subject (now) it waits upon 
Reign'st in Acte, Judgment, and Invention. 
For this I love thee, and can do no less 
For thine as faire, as faithful Shepherdess." 



■'L. of S., p. 246. 
»H. of S., p. 203. 



64 



places Philasier among the plays first produced at the Globe 
and the Blackfriars by the King's men 1 6 10-13, and again in 
a foot-note\ after Dec. 24, 1609. \n\y\s Chronicle of the Drama, "^ 
he says it was produced by the King's men at the Globe, be- 
fore 1 6 10, Oct. 8. Here at last he is on safe ground, but even 
here he assumes that it was written after Shakspere left the 
King's men,^ which we have already seen, even from his own 
statements, to be impossible.* 

The statement in the 1620 quarto that the play was acted at 
the Globe is probably of no value in indicating the place of 
the first performance,^ but there is no reason why Philaster 
may not have been produced there before Burbadge took up 
the Blackfriars lease in 1608. There is, in fact, no early limit 
that can be set for the date; the final limit is of course, fixed 
by Davies' Epigram. The Scourge of Folly furnishes no further 
clue in regard to the date of this epigram. The only other 
play referred to is Marston's Malcontent (printed 1604). The 
epigram preceding the one on Fletcher is addressed to Ostler, 
"sole king of actors," who joined the King's men when Bur- 
badge took up the lease in 1608. 

One passage in the play seems certainly to contain a local 
allusion, but I have not been able to identify it. 

" So please you, sir, he's gone to see the city 
And the new platform; with some gentlemen 
Attending on him." •> 

One passage seems to be an echo oi Hamlet^ and Mr. Ma- 
caulay and Dr, Leonhardt * have also found other similarities. 

The date, i6o8, adopted by Dyce, Leonhardt, Macaulay, and 
students in general, is no more than a conjecture; but on the 
whole it seems a probable one. 

The Maid's Tragedy. First quarto, 161 9. " As it hath been 
divers times acted at the Blackfriars by the King Majesty's 
Servants." No authors are given. 

It was evidently written before Oct. 31, 161 1, on which day 
a play was licensed by Sir George Buc, which he endorsed as 
' ' this second maiden's tragedy. ' ' This is written on the manu- 

iH. of S., p. 250. 

2Chr. I, p. 189. 

=^Chr. I, p. 170. Note the order in which he arranges the plays. 

*See page 21. 

^Because Philaster v^SlS a very popular play and was doubtless on 
the stage in 1620. 

^Philaster, Act. V, sc. 3. 

"I, I. Dion : " Mark but the King, how pale he looks with fear! 

Oh, this same whoreson conscience, how it jades us! " 

*Anglia, Vol. VIII. The plot includes Philaster's revenge on the 
King, his father's deposer, and hence there are resemblances to the 
earlier tragedies dealing with " revenge for a father," and of course, to 
Hamlet. 

6 65 



script of that play now in existence, but the title of the play is 
missing. Mr. Fleay thinks this endorsement shows that the 
Maid' s Tragedy was licensed immediately before the play of 
Oct. 31. This is pure conjecture; the superscription may, on 
the contrary, be taken to indicate that the Maid s Tragedy was 
well known. The "second maiden's tragedy" has no appar- 
ent relation to Beaumont and Fletcher's play, and one can only 
guess at Sir George Buc's reasons for using the title. 

Mr. Fleay thinks that the masque was inserted at the time 
of the court performance^ (1612-13), and even conjectures that 
it was written for a marriage Jan. 29, 161 2, and later inserted 
in the play. The masque is mentioned in the opening lines of 
the play and several times afterwards in the first act, which 
would indicate that it was a part of the play from the first. In 
fact it is an integrant part of the action. It may have been 
revised, although the irregularities instanced by Mr. Fleay 
hardly indicate that.'' 

It must be noted that the statement in the 16 19 quarto that 
the play was acted at the Blackfriars cannot be accepted as set- 
tling the place of the first performance, so even the purchase of 
the Blackfriars' lease in 1608 cannot be certainly taken as fixing 
an early limit. Mr. Fleay finds the date 161 1 in conformity 
with his theories of the stage history; the usual conjecture has 
been 1609 or 16 10. So far as I can find, there is no early limit 
for the date, 1609 is an unobjectionable conjecture, and the 
latest limit is certainly Oct. 31, 161 1. 

The Coxco77ib. First printed in folio 1647. Acted at court 
by Rossiter's Company before Lady Elizabeth and Prince Pala- 
tine Oct., 1612;* also acted before the King March, 1613.* 

There is a list of actors given in the second folio (1679). In 
the History of the Stage^ Mr. Fleay assigns this list to the pre- 
sentation before the King 1613. In the Chronicle of the Dravia^ 
he decides that the list "must date before August 29, 161 1, 
for Gary and Barkstead, who appear on it, and who had always, 

^See ante, p. 29. 

* Mr. Fleay is at so much trouble to prove that the masque was a 
later insertion because he thinks the lines — 

" You shall have many floods fuller and higher 
Than you have wished for ; and no ebb shall dare 
To let the day see where your dwellings are." 

can hardly refer to the floods of 1607, and must, therefore, refer to 
those of 1612, Oct. -Dec, i. e., the allusion must have been made in the 
revision for the court performance. The allusion is very doubtful at 
best, but there is no reason why the play may not date early enough 
to make the allusion to the floods of 1607. 

3H. of S., p. 175- 

*01dys' ms. notes to Langbaine. 

5H. of S., p. 187. 

6Chr., I, 185. 

66 



till then, been Revels boys, at that date joined the Lady Eliza- 
beth's men under Foster." He also decides that the date must 
be later than Mar. 30, i6io, because Joseph Taylor, who is on 
the list, was on that date with the Duke of York's men. The 
first statement is correct, but the last is a surprising inference. 
The Duke of York's Company was just established on March 
30, 1610;^ so that Fleay conjectures that Taylor at once left 
this newly formed men's company to play with Rossiter's chil- 
dren. The natural inference is that Taylor^ had been with the 
Revels children and left them in March, 1610, to join the 
newly formed men's company, just as Car)^ and Barkstead did 
in 161 1. Taylor was evidently a prominent actor by 1610-12, 
for he is second on the list of Lady Elizabeth's Company, Aug. , 
161 1 (which he joined with Cary and Barkstead), and is acting 
as manager in 1612-13^ in the list of court payments. If we 
take the natural inference in regard to him the Coxcomb must 
date not after but before March 30, 1610.^ 

Now, Jonson's Epiccene was performed by the Revels chil- 
dren in 1609, and we have a list of the actors. Rossiter's Com- 
pany, it will be remembered, was a continuation of the Revels 
(first Queen's). The question arises did the Coxcomb precede 
or follow Epiccene ? A comparison of the two lists leaves the 
question in doubt: five names are the same on both lists. I 
give them, with numbers denoting their order: 

Cox. Epic. 

Nathan Field, i i 

Giles Carey, 3 3 

Rich. Allin, 5 6 

Hugh Attawell, 6 5 

Will Barkstead, 8 2 

Three names are different on each list. I give them, with 
the dates and companies with which they are known to have 
been playing after these lists. No one of the six is found on 
any earlier list. 

Coxcomb. Joseph Taylor (2) Mar. 30, 16 10, Duke of York's. 
Aug. 29, 161 1, Forster's Lady Ehzabeth's. 

Emanuel Read (4) 16 13, the reorganized Lady Elizabeth's 
Company, to which Field also went. 1617, Queen Anne's, 

Robt. Benfield (7) 1613, Lady Elizabeth's. 1619, King'smen. 

Epiccene. Will Pen (4) 20 May, 16 16, Prince's men. 

John Smitth (7) 20 May, 1616, Prince's men. 

John Blaney (8) 1617, Queen Anne's. 

1 H. of S., p. 188. Patent is quoted, which, was granted Mar. 30, 1610, 
to the Duke of York's men. 

-Mr. Oliphaut also comes to this conclusion. See Eng. Studien, 
XV, p. 322. 

3H. of S., p. 175- 

*So Mr. Oliphant decides. Eng. Studien, XV, p. 322. 

67 



There is no evidence which of the lists is older, both may 
date at about the same time. There is no reason why the Cox- 
comb list may not apply to an earlier presentation than that of 
Epicane; possibly, then, to a first presentation at Blackfriars, 
1605-8. 

Other evidences of date are slight. Ostend is alluded to,^ 
and also the pamphlet of Nicholas Breton, printed 1600- 1602.'' 

The source of the plot which gives the play its name is Cer- 
vantes' Curioso hnpertmente ; first printed with Don Quixote, 
1605; translated into French and published 1608, as Le Ctirieux 
Impertinente .^ This fixes the earliest limit for The Coxcomb 
at 1605. It is certainly earlier than Aug. 29, 161 1 ; almost as 
certainly earlier than March 30, 1610; and, possibly enough, 
earlier than 1609.'* 

Cupid' s Revenge. First quarto, 161 5. " By John Fletcher," 
"As it hath been divers times acted by the Children of her 
Majestie's Revels." The printer in an address to the reader 
declares that he is not acquainted with the author and ends: 
" I once again dedicate this book to the judicious, some whereof 
' ' I have heard commend it to be excellent — who because they 
' ' saw it acted and knew whereof they spoke are the better to 
"be believed, — and for my part, I censure thus — that I have 
' ■' never read a better. ' ' 

It was acted before Prince Henry and Princess Elizabeth, 
the Sunday following New Year's 161 2, by the Children of 
Whitefriars, and again at court, according to Oldys, in 16 13. 

All critics agree in assigning shares to both Beaumont and 
Fletcher. There are evidences of alteration, and Mr. Fleay 
thinks it was worked over for the court presentation; Mr. 
Boyle also finds indications of a third hand; and Mr. Oliphant 
of a third and fourth. 

Mr. Fleay fixes the date at 16 10, because Rossiter's com- 
pany of Revels was then at Whitefriars and because he thinks 
Beaumont and Fletcher stopped writing for the Revels children 
and went to the King's men in the fall of 16 10. This last 
statement, we have seen, to be contrary to evidence.^ The 

^11, 2. " When they take a thief, I'll take Ostend again." 

Ostend was taken Sept. 8, 1604. Such an allusion as this might date 
anumberof years after the event. Ostend is also alluded to in Woman's 
Prize, I, 3, and Love's Ctire, I, i (both probably acted before 1608). 

^V, 4. " Mother, do }-ou read Madcap still?" Cf. Dyce. C/., also, 
\.h.t. Scornful Lady, II, i. 

^ Cf. Koeppel, p. 83. Don Quixote seems to have been known to 
Beaumont and Fletcher in Spanish. This plot from the Curioso Int- 
pertinente is also used in Field's Amends for Ladies (1611?) and the 
Seco n d Ma id en ' ^ Tragedy ( 1 6 1 1 ) . 

*The country scenes (especially III, 3) suggest the conjecture that 
the Coxcovtb may be one of the comedies written at the time of Beau- 
mont's stay in the country, referred to in his Poetical Epistle to Ben 
fonson (about 1606). 

^See ante, Chap. II. 

68 



play may have been written for the earlier Revels and handed 
over by them to Rossiter's company, or it may have been writ- 
ten for Rossiter's company in 1610-11, while Beaumont and 
Fletcher were also writing for the King's men. The play, as 
in all cases of which we have evidence, was doubtless acted in 
public before the court performance; therefore its date cannot 
be later than the last of 161 1. 

The plot requires some consideration because it throws open 
an opportunity for conjectures in respect to the date and be- 
cause it illustrates the dramatic methods of Beaumont and 
Fletcher. It is taken from Sidney's Arcadia} Two stories 
are combined more closely than in the Arcadia, and the prosy 
narrative of the novel is developed into a series of lively situa- 
tions with a new melodramatic denouement, quite after the 
stjde of that in Thierry and Theodoret. Some of the other 
alterations are worth noting. ( i ) The repugnant dwarf Zoilus 
is substituted for the nurse's son, with whom the Princess is 
enamoured. This "Cupid's revenge" recalls Oberon's re- 
venge in Midsum7ner Nighf s Dream as Koeppel suggests, but 
the change is obviously due to a desire for a ' strong ' stage 
situation. (2) The machinery of Cupid, who descends and 
ascends, is added; this with the dance and songs supplies the 
first two acts with a masque-like element. (3) The queen, 
Bacha, is a very bad woman of the Megra-Brunhalt type; her 
portrait is, however, distinctly sketched in Arcadia. (4) Ti- 
mantus, the coward and poltroon of the Bessus-Protaldy type 
is developed from a very slight allusion in the novel to the 
"queen's wicked coun.sellors. " (5) Ismenus, the faithful 
friend of the Melantius-Mardonius type, is added. (6) Urania, 
the girl of the Aspatia-Bellario type, who dons boy's clothes 
and follows her lover, is also added. These last two charac- 
ters are not so much as suggested in the Arcadia. (7) Leu- 
cippus, the hero, is of the Philaster-Amintor sort, or as Mr. 
Oliphant styles the type, "the Beaumontesque lily-livered 
order of men." This character is hardly suggested in the 
novel. ^ 

Now the types represented by these last five characters ap- 
pear in Philaster, the Maid' s Tragedy, Thierry and Theodoret, 
and A King and No Kiyig. We shall have occasion to discuss 
them later, but their appearance here shows that when Beau- 
mont and Fletcher wrote Cupid' s Revenge they had the main 
features of their characteristic romances clearly in mind. They 
followed the plot given them rather closely at times but always 

^Works, ed. 1725. Vol. I, 264 ff, 276 ff. Cf. Dyce, Vol. II, 331, and 
Koeppel, p. 41. 

2 It may be noted that the mob which rescues Leucippus is developed 
from a brief reference in the Arcadia. It recalls the mob in 
Philaster. 

69 



with an eye to startling and vigorous situations and with the 
addition of a denouement similar to one used in another play. 
To this plot they added a little spectacular business and five 
types of characters familiar in their other plays. There is no 
indefiniteness in the character-drawing, little sign of experi- 
mentation. There is little masterly poetry in the pla}^ but the 
' ' lily-livered prince, ' ' the evil, passionate woman, the blunt sol- 
dier-friend, the poltroon, and the childishly loving girl are all 
delineated with a completeness that indicates practice. 

The play is such a one as might have been hastily written 
by men who merely drew from their dramatic stock in trade — 
it looks like an attempt to repeat the success of Philaster. 
So it seems to me, but one must not rest much on conjectures of 
this sort. Whatever its date may be in relation to the other 
romances, Cupid's Revenge affords an interesting opportunitj' 
to study the methods of construction and the stock characters 
of the Beaumont and Fletcher romances. 

A King and No King. First quarto, entered S. R. Aug. 7, 
1618. It was licensed by Buck in 161 1, and performed at court 
Dec. 161 1 and again 1612-13. This is the only playacted 
before 161 2, the j'ear of whose production is fixed. 

We have now examined the dates of eight plays certainly 
acted by the end of 161 1, we shall next consider the dates of 
eight others which may be conjecturally assigned to the same 
period. 

The Woman'' s Prize, or the Tajner Tamed. First printed in 
folio 1647. Revived in 1633; described in Herbert's licensing 
book as "an old play by Fletcher; " suppressed by Herbert 
and the Scornful Lady acted instead. Acted before the King 
and Queen Nov. 28, 1633 by the King's men and "very well 
liked." Two days before, the Taming of the Shrezc was acted 
and only "liked." 

The play is a sequel to the Taming of the Sh?'€w and intro- 
duces Petruchio with a second wife who tames him. Mr, 
Fleay is in doubt whether to date it 161 2 or 161 5, preferring 
the latter and conjecturing that the play was originally pro- 
duced by the Lady Elizabeth's men. Mr. Oliphant gives rea- 
sons for thinking it was an early play of 1606-7, or possibly 
1604, and revi.sed about 1613-14.^ 

Mr. Oliphant points out tha;t Dekker's Medicine for a Curst 
IVife^ was acted by the Admiral's men July 1602, Hey wood's 
A 1Vo7?ian Killed with Kindness,"^ Feb. -March, 1603, and the 
Taming of the Shrew by the King's men in 1603,^ and that 
Patieyit Grissil was published in 1603. Fletcher's play on a 

lEnglische Studien, XV, pp. 388, 389. 
2 See Henslow's Diary. 
8 Fleay, Shaks., p. 224, 

70 



similar theme he thinks may have been suggested by these; 
or, as he thinks more likely, it may be connected with the 
publication of ^ Woman Killed with Kindness, in 1607, and the 
re-entry of the old Tami7ig of the Shrew in the same year. 

The play contains the following allusions (I, 3) to the siege 
of Ostend (July 5, 1601, to Sept. 8, 1604). 

" Colonel Bianca. She commands the works 

Spinola's but a ditcher to her." 

" The chamber's nothing but a mere Ostend." 

The fortification metaphor, moreover, runs throughout the 
scene. The most natural and, I think, a safe conclusion^ is 
that the play was written during or shortly after the siege of 
Ostend. 

There is another allusion (II, 2) which points to an early 
date. 

" his infliction 
That killed the Prince of Orange, will be sport 
To what we purpose." 

The Prince of Orange was murdered in 1584; a very vivid 
account of the punishments inflicted upon the murderer is given 
in A True Discourse Historical of the Succeeding Governors of the 
Netherlands, etc., 4to, 1602.*^ This account would seem to 
have been in the writer's mind when he wrote the above pas- 
sage. 

There is an allusion to the Spanish Tragedy (II, 6) and a 
burlesque on Hamlet (V, 3).^ A ballad is given (I, 3) which 
is also quoted in the Burning Pestle (III, 5) and Monsieur 
Thomas (III, 3). 

Valid reasons for dating this and other plays as early as 
1604-5 might be adduced from the complete blank in Fletcher's 
career, 1604-7, and the large number of important plays usually 
assigned, 1607-11, but consideration of such evidence may well 
be postponed until we attempt to form a chronology of all the 
plays together. In this case there is sufficient internal evi- 
dence to determine the date. There is nothing in the play to 

lit is possible that the reference may have been written eight or ten 
years after the event, but it sounds like a contemporaneous allusion. 
The siege of Ostend was, to be sure, a very famous event, but it is 
alluded to in only two other of Beaumont and Fletcher's collected 
plays, Coxcomb, II, 2, Dyce, III, p. 154, and Love's Cure, I, i, Dyce, 
X, p. 112. Both of these, we shall find reason to think, date before 
1609, and both of the allusions distinctly refer to the siege as a past 
event. A true history of the Memorable Siege of Ostend, etc., 4 to, was 
published in 1604. 

2See Works, ed. Dyce, VII, p. 113. 

3 Mr. Oliphant also finds a parody on Lear (II, 5) and an allusion to 
a Woman Killed with Kindness (III, 4). The latter speaks of a hus- 
band "killed with kindness," and has no reference to Heywood's 
play. 

71 



contradict the early date;^ and the references to Ostend and the 
murderer of the Prince of Orange, and, less surely, the plays 
on similar themes of about 1603, seem to fix the date at 1604. 

Love' s Cure or the Martial Maid. First printed in folio 1647; 
without an actors' list, therefore probably not acted by the 
King's men. 

The date was formerly supposed to be fixed by the allusion 
to the cold Muscovite^ at 1622 or a little later. Mr. Fleay, 
however, has shown reasons for thinking that the first produc- 
tion was much earlier and that the reference to the cold Mus- 
covite belongs to a late revision by Massinger of the original 
play by Beaumont and Fletcher. At the start it is necessary 
to show some evidence of such a revision. Fleay, Boyle, and 
Oliphant are all agreed that a large part of the play as it now 
stands is to be accredited to Massinger. No one finds any very 
conclusive evidence of Fletcher's work; the probability, there- 
fore, of an original unrevised play rests on the question of 
Beaumont's authorship. 

The prologue at a late revival, subsequent to 1625, mentions 
Beaumont and Fletcher as the authors, which rather implies 
that the play was written in Beaumont's life-time. Moreover, 
Beaumont's hand seems to me distinctly traceable. Two scenes 
in particular seem to me Beaumont's in entirety. On looking 
at their divisions, I find that Fleay and Oliphant also assign 
these scenes among others to Beaumont. Boyle assigns them 
to an unknown author, but an examination of his tables'' shows 
that these scenes must be assigned by verse tests to Beaumont. 
The table shows the tests for the two scenes in Love' s Cure and 
compares the results with the percentages of other of Beau- 
mont's plays. 

This is as near as you can come to proving authorship by 
verse-tests.* We are justified, then, in concluding that as 

iMr. Oliphant finds an allusion to Jonson's Silent Woman (III, 
i), and also says he finds comparisons with half a dozen of Beaumont 
and Fletcher's" plays. He only gives two of these, and they do not 
tempt one to search farther. They are : 

Woman's Prize, II, i. " My nose blown to my hand." 

Woman Hater, III, i. " My nose blow'd to my hand." 

Woman's Prize, II, 2. " Put up your pipes." 

Woman Hater, III, i. "Put up thy pipes." 

Obviously, Mr. Oliphant has a very keen scent for these similarities, 
and he thinks a good many of them belong to the conjectured revision 
of 1613-14. The two titles and the fact that the scene is I,ondon, while 
the characters have Italian names, are the onlj' definite evidences of 
this revision. No one has detected any author except Fletcher. 

2 11, 2. See Dyce. 

"Englische Studien. V, p. 74, seq. The figures in the table are 
Boyle's. 

*The ' 'em-them ' test is worth noting in this connection, although 
it is not helpful in deciding the authorship. There are 17 thems and 
21 'ems in the play : according to Boyle's division there are 13 thems 

72 





VERSE 


Si 

p p 


RUN- 
OVER 


LIGHT 
END- 


WEAK 
END- 


M 

> 






sg 


LINES 


INGS 


INGS 




Love's Cure, III, 3, 


123 


14 


41 


3 





4 


" V, 3, 


217 


40 


60 


7 


I 


8 


'* " two scenes, 


340 


54 


lOI 


10 


I 


12 


" " Percentage, 




159 


29.7 


3- 





3-5 


Beaumont's share Triumph of 












Ivove (entire), 628 


I.S.6 


25- 


3- 





9- 


Beaumont's share Philaster, 1,730 


15.2 


26.2. 


2.4 





1.2 


" "A King and 












No King, 


1,650 


II. 9 


27.8 


1.8 


•7 


I. 



Beaumont had a share in the play it must have been written 
before 161 6 and revised by Massinger after 1622. This hj^- 
pothesis is more plausible than the old one fixing the date of 
the first production in 1622, for then we should have a play 
accredited to Beaumont and Fletcher in which neither had a 
share. A part of the original play may have been written by 
Fletcher, but his work is hardly discernible through Massinger' s 
revision; Beaumont's work is discernible in my opinion in much 
that has been revised as well as in a number of scenes where it 
seems preserved in its entirety. 

We come now to internal evidence which fixes the date of the 
original play. Mr. Fleay has pointed out a number of refer- 
ences. Alvarez^ (I, 3) has had twenty years of exile; Lucio, 
born just after the departure of Alvarez into exile is twenty 
years old; ^ Alvarez had been exiled sixteen years ^ before he 
brought Clara to Ostend (June, 1661 — Aug., 1604). The date 
of the action of the play, then, is four years later, 1 605-1 608; 
which, Mr. Fleay adds, " is no doubt, as usual in plays where 
such chronological calculations are introduced, the date of 
writing. " Certainly it is natural for the date of action in such 
cases to coincide with the date of writing, but the time of action 



and I 'em in Massinger's half of the play and 4 thems and 20 'ems in 
the half assigned to the unknown author. In Oliphant's division 
there are 13 thems and i 'em in Massinger's part, 3 'ems in Beaumont 
and Massinger's, and 4 thems and 17 'ems in Beaumont's part. Even 
a single 'em in Massinger is suspicious ; the 'ems furnish no conclusive 
evidence of Fletcher's hand; and the proportion of 'ems and thems 
neither counts for nor against Beaumont. 
I. I. I them. III. 5. 

I them (prose). IV. 2. 

I them 5 'ems (all prose). IV. 3. 
I them 3 'ems. V. i. 

3 'ems. V. 3. 

3 'ems. — — 

I them I 'em. Total 17 thems 21 'ems. 

p. 121. " My twenty years of sorrow but a dream." 
p. 123. " Have you been twenty years a stranger to it? " 
p. 116. " For twenty years, which is ever since you were born, 
p. 112. 





3- 




I. 




2. 




2. 




3- 




4- 




. 3 




3. 




2, 


n 


I 



I them (prose). 

I 'em. 
7 thems. 
4 thems. 

5 'ems (2 in prose). 



73 



is stated directly in the first lines of the play without any chrono- 
logical calculations. The lines are spoken of Alvarez. 

"As if by his command aloue, and fortune, 
Holland, with those low Provinces that hold out 
Against the Arch-duke, were again compell'd 
With their obedience to give up their lives 
To be at his devotion." 

These lines and the other allusions in the first scene to the 
Arch-duke and Ostend can only refer to the war between Spain 
and the Netherlands in which the Cardinal Arch-duke Albert 
was governor of the Netherlands and which ended in a truce 
April 9, 1609. The Arch-duke was given special powers to 
bring about a truce Jan. 10, 1608,^ and from that time on nego- 
tiations were in progress; perhaps the references in Love' s Cure, 
then, may be taken to indicate a period earlier than 1608. At 
all events, they fix the time of the action, and I think un- 
questionably the time of the writing between 1605 and 1609. 

Mr. Fleay has also noticed " the use of the name Lazarilloas 
in the Woman Hater.'' Not only is the name the same, but 
this Lazarillo, like the fellow in the Woman Hater, is a glutton, 
interested in nothing but eating. Thus when he comes to 
hanging he saj's: " I have no stomach for it, but I '11 endeavor," 
and again when he is sent to the galleys, "Well, though I 
herrings want, I shall have rows." The similarity between 
the two Lazarillos points to Beaumont's authorship of Love' s 
Cure and a date not very distant from that of the Woman 
Hater. 

Mr. Fleay also says that the " miraculous maid " (II, i,) is 
the maid of Confolens, 1604. I haven't identified this. 

The other references which he cites as evidences of an early 
date are very doubtful." 

There is one other passage which bears on the date. " Why 
I but taught her a Spanish trick in charity and holp the King 

^ There was a seven months truce beginning April 24, 1607. For an 
account of the Siege of Ostend, etc., see Motley's United Netherlands, 
Vol. IV. 

-Ill, I, p. 142. " You, politic Diego with your face of wisdom ! Don 
Blirt!" 

Fleay thinks that this refers to Middleton's play, Blurt Master Con- 
stable (4to, 1602). Don Diego, a famous and unsavory character, is 
mentioned in that play and in the Famous History of Sir Thomas 
Wyatt (1602), but he is frequently alluded to in the later dramatists, 
e. g.. Maid of the Mill (licensed 1623), so the allusion does not indi- 
cate an early date. 

V, 3, end.' Alquazier. " You have married a whore, may she prove 
honest." 

Perrato. " It is better, my Lord, than to marry 

An honest woman that may prove whore." 

Considerable ingenuity is required to find here, as does Fleay, an 
allusion to Dekker's play. 

74 



to a subject that may live to take Grave Maurice prisoner " (I, 
2). This passage would most likely have been vi^ritten when 
Maurice was at war with Spain. He was at war up to 1609, 
and then, after a truce of twelve years, again from 1621 to his 
death in 1625. So far the passage might have been written 
either at the time of the original or the revised version of the 
play; but Graf Maurice of Nassau became Prince of Orange in 
161S, and if the passage was written in 1622 the latter title 
would naturally have been used. The passage, then, still far- 
ther proves that the date of writing of the original version cor- 
responds with the date of the action, and that this date is before 
1609 and probably 1605-8. 

Thierry and Theodoret. First quarto, 1621; "As it was 
divers times acted at the Black Friers by the King's Majesties 
Servants:" no authors given. Quarto, 1648, "by John Fletcher." 
Quarto, 1649, " by F. Beaumont and J. Fletcher." 

The quarto in 1621 was printed by T. Walkley, who, in 1620, 
printed an apparently pirated edition of Philaster, and in 161 9 a 
quarto of^ King a^id No King} In a preface to the latter, 
Walkley addresses Sir Henry Neville, from whom he says he 
had received the manuscript, and he speaks of both authors as 
living. Beaumont had been dead three years, and Walkley 
evidently had no intercourse with Fletcher. The testimony of 
the quartos is as usual untrustworthy, but it is worth noting that 
as far as quartos go Thierry and Theodoret has practicallj^ as good 
evidence for an early date as Philastcr and A King and No 
King and the same testimony to Beaumont's authorship as the 
Wojnan Hater. '^ 

Mr. Fleay places the date about 161 7, because he thinks the 
play a satire on the French court at that period. Mr. Fleay 
and Mr. Boyle think the play written by Fletcher, Massinger, 
and a third writer concerning whose identity they are in doubt. ^ 
Dyce and Macaulay find evidences of Beaumont's authorship 
which would require an early date; and Mr. Oliphant thinks 
the play was first written by Beaumont and Fletcher about 
1607-8 and revised 1617 by Fletcher and Massinger. I shall 
try to show that there is good reason, apart from Mr. Oliphant' s 
analysis, to conclude that the play was originally written at an 
early date and revised at a later date by Massinger. The proof 
of this proposition will depend mainly on an examination of the 
sources of the plot and a comparison of the play with the other 
romances by Beaumont and Fletcher; but at the start we must 
look at the authorship tests to see what warrant they give for 

^In these two quartos Beaumont and Fletcher were named. 
"^ Woman Hater, ^to, 1607, no author : 4to, 1648, "by J. Fletcher;" 
4to, 1649, by F. Beaumont and J. Fletcher. 

3 Mr. A. H. Bullen adopts this analysis. Diet. Nat. Biog. 



75 



supposing that Massinger was a late reviser and Beaumont one 
of the original authors. 

Besides the scenes which are variously assigned, four scenes 
(I, i; II, 2; IV, i; V, 2,) are assigned by every one to Fletcher; 
three others are assigned to Massinger by Fleay, Oliphant, and 
Boyle in his Englische Sttidien papers^ (I, 2; II, i; IV, 2). 
Two of the three remaining verse scenes are selected by 
Macaulay as most plainly Beaumont's, are assigned in large 
part by Oliphant to Beaumont, were assigned to Beaumont bj^ 
Fleay before he had fixed on 161 7 for the date, and are now 
assigned by Fleay and Boyle rather doubtfully to Field and 
Daborne, respectively. From an examination of Mr. Boyle's 
own verse tests, it will be seen that there is no great difficulty 
in accrediting the.se scenes to Beaumont; indeed a comparison 
with the verse tests of the two plays most probably wholly his 
entirely removes the difficult}'. 





VERSE 




RUN- 
OVER 


WEAK 
END- 


LIGHT 
END- 


> 






BS 


LINES 


INGS 


INGS 


H 


Th. and Th. Ill, r, 


2q6 


67 


6q 


5 


2 


16 


Th. and Th. Ill, 2, 


70 


15 


17 


2 


I 


2 


Percentaofe, 




22.4 


2,v6 


1.9 


0.9 


4.9 


Knight of the B. P., 




23.2 


18. 


0.7 




23-4 


Woman Hater, 




17- 


22.7 


2. 


05 


6.8 


Philaster (Beaumont's share). 




15-2 


26.2 


2.4 




1.2 



So much for verse tests and Beaumont's authorship; Mas- 
singer's share in the play is not denied, and if Beaumont was 
one of the original authors Massinger must be counted a reviser. 
Mr. Oliphant, in fact, finds portions of scenes in which he thinks 
Massinger' s revisal of Beaumont's work is apparent, and there 
is one scene (II, 3) in which Mr. Boyle finds Massinger where 
the others find only Fletcher. Moreover, in a scene assigned 
by all three critics to Massinger (II, i), there are two 'ems 
and eleven thems.^ Even these two 'ems rather indicate that 



lEng 


Studien, Vol. V. 












2 The 


'ems and thems occur as 


follows : 










I. I. 


6 'ems. I them. F. 


IV. I. 


I 


'em. 


2 them. 


F. 


I. 2. 


'ems. I them. M. 


IV. 2. 





'ems. 


2 thems. 


M. 


II. I. 


2 'ems. II thems. M. 


V. I. 


I 


'em. 


8 thems. 


B.? prose 


II. 2. 


5 'ems. I them. F. 


V. 2. 





'ems. 


2 thems 


F. 


II. 3- 


'ems. 2 thems. ? 




— 




— 




III. I. 


I 'em. I them. B? 


Total 


16 


'ems. 


31 thems 




III. 2. 


'ems. them. B.? 













In the four scenes generally assigned to Fletcher there are 12 'ems 
6 thems in 735 lines. In the three scenes assigned generally to Mas- 
singer, 2 'ems 13 thems (728 lines). In the two verse scenes assigned 
to Beaumont t 'em i them (366 lines). The 'em-them test thus indi- 
cates that the division between Massinger and Fletcher is roughly 



76 



some one besides Massinger had a hand in the scene. Still 
further, in another scene assigned to Massinger (I, 2), there 
seems to me a noticeable difference in the style before and after 
the entrance of De Vitry. An application of the verse tests 
confirms my opinion.^ Throughout the play, both in Fletcher's 
and Beaumont's parts, Massinger's work will similarly, I sus- 
pect, be found to be that of a reviser and completer." 

The sources of the plot were stated by Langbaine to be the 
chronicles of the time of Clotaire II : Fredegarius, Aimonius, 
Crispin, De Serres, and Mezeray. This statement has been 
frequently quoted by later writers, but an examination of the 
sources seems never to have to have been attempted. Mezeray^ 
did not write until towards the end of the century, long after 
Thierry and Theodorei ; the chronicles of Fredegarius and 
Aimonius* do contain the sources of the plot; but the imme- 
diate source seems to have been a work based on the chronicles. 
Lez Antiquitez et Histoires Gauloises et Frayigoises,^ by M. 
Claude Fauchet was published as appears by the dedicatory 
letter, in 1599. This work may very readily have come to the 
hands of Beaumont and Fletcher and seems to have supplied all 
the historical matter they used. It follows the chronicles so 
closely that one cannot say certainly whether they used it or 
the chronicles, but its existence and vogue (several editions) at 

accurate; but the 'ems in Massinger's part, and the large proportion 
of thems in Fletcher's, hint that the separation of the two authors is 
not exact. 



1 


VERSE 
LINES 


11 


RU>f- 
OVER 

LINES 


WEAK 
END- 
INGS. 


LIGHT 
END- 
INGS 


H 
> 


I, 2, a, to De Vitry's entry. 

Percentage, 

I, 2, b, after De Vitry's entry, 

Percentage, 


78 

54 


18 

23.1 
23- 
51-9 


41 

52.6 

18. 

33-3 


6 

7-7 
I. 


4 

5- 
I. 


2 
2 



The second part of the scene answers pretty well to the Fletcher 
canon though the number of run-over lines is a trifle large. The first 
part suits the Massinger canon better than the second, but the double 
endings are rather few and the run-over lines rather many. Add the 
two parts together and you get percentages which correspond fairly 
well with Massinger's work ; which shows how easily verse tests may 
conceal rather than disclose double authorship. The verse tests I have 
given don't prove double authorship, but in substantiation of an opinion 
formed merely in reading the lines they are rather striking. 

^This will have to rest on opinion ; verse tests, at least, offer no sure 
help. 

8 Born 1610. 

*I have not examined De Serres or Crispin. 

^I have used an edition of Les Oeuvres de Fev M. Claude Fauchet, 
Paris, 1610; described as the " derni^re edition" — " r^visees et corri- 
g^es " — "supplies et augment^es. 



77 



this time make the probability great that Beaumont and Fletcher 
drew from it alone. ^ 

The principal events which form the historical basis of the 
play are as follows : 

1 . ^ The kingdom is divided between Thierr}^ and Theodoret, 
and Brunhalt (Brunhaud), having outraged the Austrasians 
by her cruelty, is expelled from the court of Theodoret and 
goes to that of Thierr3\ Historically, she is the grandmother 
of the two kings. 

2. ^ The characters of Brunhalt and Thierry and their re- 
spective amours are distinctly outlined. 

3.'' Protaldy (Protand or Protadius), Brunhalt's minion, is 
elevated to the office of master of the palace. He is later killed 
by the nobles while seated in the tent of King Thierry, " jou- 
ant aux tables avec Pierre, premier medecin du Roy." 

4. ^ This civil war between Thierry and Theodoret, thus 
prevented by the death of the leader, Protaldy, is urged on 
anew by Brunhalt. She incites Thierry by declaring that Theo- 
doret is the son of a gardener, not of the king. 

5. ® Theodoret is defeated in battle, captured by Thierry, 
and put to death by Brunhalt. 

6. ^ Thierry marries Ermemberge, daughter of the King of 
Spain, but he is prevented by Brunhalt ^ and her sister from 
ever living with his bride as husband, and Ermemberge is sent 
back to Spain. 

7.^ Thierry wishes to marry the daughter of Theodoret 
(who in the play is named Memberge, evidently suggested by 
Ermemberge), but Brunhalt opposes and now declares that 
Theodoret really was his brother. She finally poisons Thierry. 
This account ^^ may be quoted in full to show how the historical 
narrative is made dramatic. 

" Thiebert, Roy d'Austrasie auvit, commei'ay dit laisse une 
tres belle fille, de I'excellente beaute de laquelle Thierry vaincu, 
desira I'auoir pour femme, contre la volonte de son ayeule; la- 
quelle n'ayant fait difficulte d'espouser Merouee neueu de 

1 Apart from the dependence of the plot of Thierry and Theodoret 
on the historical narrative, there is evidence that Beaumont and 
Fletcher used either the chronicles or Fauchet. The name, Phara- 
mond, in Philaster seems to be taken from Fauchet, it is the name of 
the first king of France. In Henry VIII, I, 3, 1 10, (Fletcher's part) 
there is an allusion to Pepin and Clotaire. 

^Book V, ch. 2, p. 151. 

3Bk. V, ch. 2. 

*Bk. V, ch. 2, p. 153. 

5B. V, ch. 3, p. 153. 

6B. V, ch. 4, p. 156. 

"B. V, ch. 3, p. 154. 

^ In the translation of Mezeray " by the witchcraft of Bruuhalt," etc. 

9B. V, ch. 5, p. 157. 

^Ubid. 

78 



Sigisbert son mary, maiutenant se monstroit plus conscientieuse 
a I'endroit de Thierry, & luiz mettoit deuaut les yeux, que 
ceste Damoiselle estant fiUe de son frere, il ne la pouuoit raison- 
nablement espouser. Sur quoy Thierry presque forcene d' amour, 
luy respondit; mechante ennemie de Dieu, ne ra'as tu pas dit 
qu'il n'estoit point mon frere? Pourquoy done, si ceste cy est 
ma niepce, m'as tu fait coramettre un si detestable parricide? Je 
t'assure que tu en mourras; & mettant la main a I'espee, sur 
I'heure s'en alloit tuer son ayeule, qui ne la luy eust oster. 
Toutesfois elle fut portee en sa maison, ayant eschappe la mort 
toute certaine : mais retenant en son courage vn appetit de 
vengeance qu'elle ne point longuement garder. Car a Tissue 
d'un bain, elle fit presenter a ce Roy vn beuuage empoisonne 
duquel il mourut aussi meschautement qu'il s'estoit desordon- 
nement porte la reste de sa vie. ' ' 

Throughout the play as well as in the dramatization of this 
chapter, the historical narrative is much changed, the chrono- 
logical order is avoided, and many new situations are added. 
We shall return later to a consideration of some of these 
changes and additions; for the present we are to note that the 
indebtedness of the play to the historical account is certainly 
very considerable.-^ Any political references to the contemporary 
French court made in Massinger's revision of the play would 
not interfere with our hypothesis of an early date; but there 
is no evidence of any satire on the court of Mary de Medici. 

Mr. Fleay's evidence is : " The astrology of Lacure and the 
name De Vitry distinctly point to the condemnation of Concini 
in 1617 for treason and sorcery. Vitri arrested the Marechal 
d'Ancre, and on his resistance killed him." 

IvCcure, Protaldy's associate in villainy, is described as physi- 
cian to Brunhalt and is obviously suggested by Protaldy's 
companion in the chronicles, the "premier medecin du Roy." 
His astrology and the drugs by which he renders Thierry in- 
capable seem, also, to have been derived from the actual practices 
of Brunhalt in frustrating the marriage of Thierry and Her- 
meric. For a contemporary prototype of lyccure there is no 
need of going to France and the Concini case; a much better 
example is to be found in the notorious Dr. Simon Forman, of 
London, who was at the height of his quackery for the ten years 
preceding his death, in 161 1. Forman's practices,*^ exactly re- 

'^ Brunhowlte, an old play of 1597, mentioned in Henslow's diary, 
may have been at the basis of Thierry and Theodoret, but the latter's 
obligation to the historical narrative is sometimes so minute, and the 
development of the material so characteristic of Beaumont and Fletcher, 
that I don't imagine they used the old play at all. 

'^State Trials, I, p. 339, seq. Kennett, Vol. II, p. 667. Forman was 
consulted by Lady Essex (Frances Howard) and Mrs. Turner "how 
they might stop the current of the Earl's affection toward his wife." 
" He made many little pictures of brass and wax " .... "and 

79 



sembling those of Lecure upon Thierry, are related in the state 
trials and seventeenth centurj' accounts of the career and trial 
of Frances Howard. Forman was well known and he was only 
one of many; such astrologers as Lecure and such practices as 
his were common enough. Their exploitation in this play can 
have no specific reference to Concini, but is clearly only the 
natural development of the direct suggestions of the historical 
narrative. 

As to the name De Vitry, it is too common to point very 
closely at the Vitri who arrested Marechal d' Ancre. We learn 
from the letters of the French minister, Beaumont,^ that there 
was a M. de Vitry in England 1603-5, "^ perfect master of the 
.science of the chase," sent by Henry to insinuate himself into 
James' favor. Moreover this name may have been derived 
directly from the chronicles on Fauchet. In Gregory of Tours - — 
of whose chronicle Fredegarius is a continuation — in an account 
of an expedition by Brunhalt and her husband against Chil- 
peric, there is mention of a village " de nom de Vitry." In 
Fauchet * the village is a Vitry. 

So much for Mr. Fleay's conjectures in the light of the play's 
sources; returning now to the dramatic development of the 
historical material, I find additional evidences of Beaumont's 
workmanship. Among the most notable situations added to 
the historical plot are (i) those involving Protaldy and (2) 
those involving Ordella. The Protaldy scenes have a very close 
resemblance to the Bessus scenes in A King and No King. In 
one scene* Protaldy, the braggart-coward, is kicked and de- 
prived of his sword by Martell just as Bessus, a similar brag- 
gart and coward, is kicked and deprived of his sword by Ba- 
curius." In another scene'' Protaldy is again disgraced and 
beaten by de Vitry as Bessus is beaten by Lygones.^ Of the 
Ordella scenes. the final one,** a highly melodramatic denouement, 
quite after the style of Beaumont and Fletcher's romances, 
closely resembles the denoument of Cupid' s Revenge. The hero 
dies by the hand of the wicked queen-mother; the heroine dies 
apparentlj' simply for the sake of dying with her beloved; the 

then with philters, powders, and such drugs, he works upon their 
persons." His powders, according to accounts, proved successful with 
the Earl and also with Mrs. Turner's lover. Forman was in great 
demand among the court people of the day, as his papers discovered 
at his death made evident. 

1 Translation of von Ramner, II, 201. 

*Guizot's edition, Book IV, p. 231. 

3B. Ill, ch. XVI. 

*II, 2 (Fletcher). 

6A King and N. K., Ill, 2. 

6III, I (Beaumont?) 

"A. K. N. K., V, J. 

s V, 2 (Fletcher). For other Ordella Scenes, see III, i ; IV, i. 



80 



wicked qiteen-mother commits suicide; and the faithful friend 
is left to curse her and to lament his friend. 

The development of the characterization even more closely 
resembles that of the other Beaumont and Fletcher romances. 
Ordella is merely named in the history; in the play she becomes 
another of the devoted, sacrificing, idyllic maidens so familiar 
in Beaumont and Fletcher. Martell, the blunt and faithful 
friend, and De Vitry, a sort of understudy, are not so much as 
hinted at in the history but are of a type familiar in the other 
romances and perhaps most highly developed in Mardonius of 
A King and No King. Protaldy in the chronicles is the par- 
amour of Brunhalt, but a man "subtil et habile en toutes 
actions; " Mn the play he is developed into the utter poltroon 
and supplies the comic element. He reminds one very closely 
of Bessus in A King and No King. Brunhalt and Thierry are 
at least outlined in the history, but in the play they are developed 
much as their prototypes are developed in Cupid' s Revenge 
from a similar outline in the Arcadia. Thierry resembles most 
closely Arbaces of A King and No King."^ 

These five types of character are the same five types that we 
find in Philasier, the Maid' s Tragedy,^ A King and No King, 
and Cupid' s Revenge. The first three of these romances were 
probably written mainly by Beaumont, and he had a share of the 
fourth. These five types of character, on whose development 
the plays depend for their characteristic qualities, are certainly 
among the most salient features of Beaumont and Fletcher's 
work. They appear in every romance in which Beaumont had 
a share and the)' appear together in no play written by Fletcher 
alone and in no play of Massinger's. They are characteristic 
of the four plays mentioned above and of Thierry and Theo- 
doret and of no other. ^ The evidence, then, is strong that 
Beaumont had a share with Fletcher in creating Thierry and 
Theodoret. 

Not only do these resemblances to the other romances point 
to Beaumont's authorship, they point in a still more definite 
way to an early date. In the method of dramatizing a short 
narrative, in the construction of the denouement, and in the 
addition and development of certain fixed types of character; we 
have seen that the play resembles Cupid' s Revenge. Still more 
specifically in the character types and distinctly in the braggart- 
soldier scenes, we have noted its resemblance to A King and 

^Fauchet: B. V., ch. 3, p. 153. 

2 Thierry and Arljaces form a species by themselves, differing con- 
siderably from the other heroes. The Bauder and the rest are the 
ordinary comic people of the stage and readily suggested by the ac- 
counts of the amours of Brunhalt and of Thierry. 

* Except the poltroon. 

'^ Four Plays ought perhaps to be added to make the case even 
stronger, but all the five types do not appear there together. 

7 81 



No Kmg. Furthermore I venture to conjecture that in the 
narrative passage quoted above from Fauchet and the situation 
developed from it in Thierry and Theodoret , we have the source 
of A King and No King. 

No other source is known. The story of Tigranes and As- 
patia is merely a variation of the Philaster-Bellario and Amin- 
tor-Aspatia situations, and the story of Bessus may well be a 
development of the Protaldy situations; but the main plot, the 
story of Arbace's love for his supposed sister, has no parallel in 
the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher unless it be the story of 
Thierry's love for his niece Memberge. In the history and in 
Thierry ayid Theodoret the situation is the same: the queen has 
two sons; she tells number one that number two is not her son 
and has him killed ; then when number one is about to marry 
number two's daughter, the queen-mother declares that number 
two really was her son and that number one will commit incest 
if he marries the girl. In A King a7id No Kiyig the wicked 
queen pretends that she has a sou; he falls violently in love 
with his supposed sister; the queen, who hates him and has 
tried to kill him, finally removes his fear of incest by declaring 
that really he is not her son. The actors are the same and the 
motives are the same as in Thierry and Theodoret, but the situa- 
tion is exactly opposite. In Thierry and Theodoret, in order 
to prevent incest, the man who is supposed to be no king is 
shown by the queen to be a king and her son; in A King and 
No King, in order to prevent incest, the man supposed to be a 
king is shown by the queen to be no king and not her son. 

I conjecture, therefore, that Beaumont and Fletcher, hav- 
ing taken the Thierry-Memberge situation from Fauchet and 
used it in the play, later developed that situation into the 
Arbaces-Panthea plot, changed it so as to have a happy ending, 
and thus created A King and No King. The other resem- 
blances between the two plays — the two kings in each play, 
one of whom in each case is a somewhat furious ranter, the 
queen-mother who loathes her son, the cowardly soldier and 
the comic scenes — all these add to the plausibility of a direct 
connection between the two such as I have conjectured. Fur- 
thermore the elaboration of a slightly outlined motive into a 
series of effective situations and the addition of a happy de- 
nouement are characteristic of the authors' dramatic methods 
and mark A King and No King as the later play. If, how- 
ever, my conjecture seems to any one fantastic rather than 
plausible, it at least detracts nothing from the rest of our 
evidence. 

Without relying on a conjecture so insusceptible of proof, 
we have no small accumulation of reasons for assigning the 
play in its original form to Beaumont and Fletcher and to a 
date earlier than 1611. The evidence of the quartos and folio 

82 



is, so far as it goes, in harmony with this hypothesis. The 
opinions of critics and the evidence of verse tests point to 
Beaumont as one of the authors and to Massinger as a reviser. 
An examination of the sources shows that the authors probably 
drew their material from a history well known in the first dec- 
ade of the century and enables us to decide that there is no evi- 
dence for the date 1617. Not only had Beaumont and Fletcher 
known the same source as early as Philaster, our examination 
further shows that Thierry and Theodoret was constructed from 
a narrative in much the same way as Cupid' s Reven^^e and that 
in its most salient characteristics it is of the same type as the 
romances which Beaumont and Fletcher were writing prior to 
161 1. Beaumont's large share in these romances is a further 
indication of his share in this play, which is still further shown 
by its strong likeness to A King and No Ki^ig. In this like- 
ness I found ground for a conjecture in regard to the origin of 
A King and No King which indicates that Thierry and Theo- 
doret preceded it. Even without this conjecture, the nature 
of our main hypothesis leads us to assign a somewhat early 
date; for if Massinger revised a play of Beaumont's at some 
time before 1619, the probability is strong that the play was an 
old and not very satisfactory one. The probability that Beau- 
mont and Fletcher had read Fauchet when they wrote Philaster 
adds a little to the probability of an early date which we may 
fix conjecturally at 1607.^ 

Monsiezir Thomas. First quarto, 1639. "Acted at the 
Private House in Black Fryers. " " The author, John Fletcher, 
Gent." There is a dedication by Rich. Brome who speaks of 
the play as Fletcher's whose it undoubtedly is. 

Mr. Fleay conjectures that this is the Father' s own Son '^ on the 
1639 list of the Queen's men. Brome was writing for the 
Queen's men at that date, and the play, therefore, seems to 
have been in their possession. Mr. Fleay concludes that it was 
not acted by the King's men, but must have come down to the 
Queen's men from the Revels children and must, therefore, 
have been acted about 1609, /. <?., before the Revels children 
left Blackfriars according to his theory. The only certain date 
for their removal from Blackfriars, however, is August, 1608; 
and if we adopt the rest of Mr. Fleay's plausible conjecture, 
the date is about 1607-8. There are bits of songs ^ which are 

^The only allusion bearing on the date is in harmony with a very 
early date. 

"Where would I wish myself now? in the Isle of Dogs, so I might 
escape scratching." Ill, 2. 

This seems to be on allusion to Nash's Isle of Dogs, acted 1597 
(Fleay, Chr. II, 149). 

2 See Fleay's comment on Halliwell-Phillips reprint of a droll of this 
name. 

3111,3. " Go from my window," etc. K. B. P., Ill, 5. Ill, 3, men- 
tion of the ballad of Mile End. K. B. P., II, 2. 

83 



also found in the Knight of the Burning Pestle which indicate 
that this date is approximately correct. Mr. Oliphant has also 
noticed that "come from Tripoli" occurs in Jonsou's Epiccene 
(acted 1609), and as Jonson was some time in writing a play, 
this harmonizes with a 1607-8 date.-^ 

Four Plays in One. First printed in folio of 1647. No list 
of actors is given in the second folio, so the presumption is 
that it was not acted by the King's men. 

The critics are generally agreed in assigning the induction 
and the first two plays to Beaumont and the last two to 
Fletcher. 2 

The play is decidedly spectacular. There is the machinery 
of the scaffolding filled with spectators, and the place where 
"the mist ariseth, the rocks remove." Numerous gods 
descend, and there are many processions and dumb shows. 
The Four Plays are given in the form of an entertainment be- 
fore a king and his bride, and the Triumph of Time has un- 
mistakably the form of a court masque. Theme, spectacle, 
and dances, all follow the recognized fashion. Mercurj^ and 
Time appear; " one half of a cloud [is] drawn," "singers are 
discovered, ' ' then the other half is drawn and Jupiter seen in his 
glory." The main masque is danced by Delight, Pleasure, 
I^ucre, Craft, Vanity, etc., and there is also an anti-masque of 
a ' ' Troop of Indians, singing and dancing wildly about Plutus. ' ' 
We have not merely an introduction of masque-like pageantry 
but a skillful effort to combine romantic drama and a court 
masque. ^ 

The spectacular business with Cupids and deities and alle- 
gorical personages recalls Cupid'' s Revenge and makes it prob- 
able that the Four Plays were presented by a children's com- 
pany. 

The play has many correspondences with other of Beaumont 
and Fletcher's plays. In the induction the satire on the citizens 
suggests the Knight of the Burning Pestle, and a similar repre- 
sentation of citizens crowding to see a court pageant occurs in 
the Maid' s Tragedy.^ In the Triumph of Death, Gabriella's 
murder of Lavall recalls Evadne's murder of the king in the 
Maid' s Tragedy;^ in the Triumph of Fortune, the opening dia- 
logue between Marius and Sophocles recalls the one between 
Arbaces and Tigranes in a A King and No King;^ and in the 
Triumph of Love, Yiolante is of the Bellario-Aspatia type — a 
sort of half finished sketch.'' 

^ Englische Studien, XV, 351. 

2 Mr. Oliphant also sees signs of Field. 

3 For discussion of the influence of the masque on drama, see Chap. 
VII. 

*I, 2. 6V, 2. ^\, I. 

^For example, see her prattle at child-birth and in the scene where 
Ferdinand comes with the poison. 

84 



In one respect the Trhimph of Death differs from Fletcher's 
other plays; it contains traces of the tragedy of ghosts and 
revenge which both Beaumont and Fletcher discarded.-^ The 
plot centers on the revenge upon lyavall, and a ghost appears 
and prophesies his fate. Further, the business of throwing 
down his heart is quite like the style of the tragedy of blood; 
and Perolot's advice — 

"No; take him dead-drunk now, without repentance, 
His lechery inseamed upon him." 

— sounds like a bit from an old revenge play. Now Fletcher 
never elsewhere brings a ghost on the stage except in the 
Humourous Lieute?iant,'^ and there in the form of a set of dancing 
spirits conjured up by a magician; the presence of a ghost 
here, then, seems to indicate that this was one of his earliest 
tragedies, written at a time when he was still slightly influ- 
enced by the ghost-revenge plays that we find so common from 
1600 to 1607. 

The probability that the play was presented by one of the 
children's companies for whom Beaumont and Fletcher were 
writing 1606-1611; the resemblance to other plays dating be- 
fore 161 1 ; and the agreement that Beaumont who probably 
retired about 161 1, had a share in the composition; all make 
the date almost certainly earlier than 161 1. 

Owing to the presence of the ghost and the resemblances to 
the other romances and the somewhat less matured treatment 
in comparison with them, I conjecture a date several years 
earlier. The use of the anti-masque, however, fixes the early 
limit at the time of the introduction of anti-masques into the 
court masques, 1608.^ I do not think th^ Four Plays much 
later than 1608.* 

The Scornful Lady. First quarto, entered S. R., March 19, 
1616. " As it was acted with great applause by the children 

1 There is the motive of revenge for a father in Philaster. 

■^ There is a ghost in the Lover's Progress (III, 5) and there are spirits 
in the Prophetess, but both of these plays are in very large part by 
Massinger ; in neither have we an admonishing, revengeful spirit as in 
the Triumph of Death. 

^See p. 28 ante. 

4 Mr. Fleay fixes the date at 1608, because "the Yorkshire Tragedy 
was published 1608 (S. R., iV^ay 21) as 'one of the Four Plays in One,'' 
as if to delude the unwary purchaser into the belief that he was buy- 
ing one of the plays then'being performed." All the other authorities 
that I have consulted (W. C. Hazlitt's Manual, 1892. Hans W. Singer, 
Das Biirgerlich Trauerspiel, 1891 ; Knight's and Malone's Editions 
of Shakspere) agree in stating that the reference to the Four Plays in 
One, is not in the 1608 quarto of the Yorkshire Tragedy, but only in 
the 1619 quarto. I have not been able to examine the 1608 quarto and 
so cannot be sure of the facts; the 1619 quarto is as described by 
Hazlitt and the others. Fleay's conjecture, even if based on fact, is 
by no means certain. 

85 



of her Maiestie's Revels in the Blackfriers." Beaumont and 
Fletcher are both named as authors, which is doubtless correct. 

Mr. Fleay thinks it was acted not later than December, 1609, 
for then, according to his theory, the Revels children left Black- 
friars, nor earlier than 1609, for then began the Cleve wars 
referred to in act V, scene 3. Since he thinks that the theaters 
did not open until after the deaths from the plague dropped 
below forty a week (they exceeded forty up to Nov. 30, 1609), 
and since he thinks the King's men occupied the theater De- 
cember 25, he has the date of the play fixed within about two 
weeks. We have alread}^ seen that the theories by which he 
reaches this conclusion are groundless. 

There are a couple of difficulties apart from his theories 
which he has not noticed. In the first place, it is by no means 
certain that the statement in the quarto of 1616 refers to the 
play's first presentation. The play was a popular one, and the 
reference may quite as plausibly be to the 16 16 performance. 
Ro.ssiter's company was also known as her Majesty's Revels 
and played in Whitefriars 16 10-15, but in 16 15-17 was attempt- 
ing to build a new theater in Blackfriars. The play may have 
been given there. Amends for Ladies, 1618, was published 
as acted at the Blackfriars both by the Prince's servants and 
the Lady Elizabeth's, and may, as Fleay suggests, have 
also been acted at this new Blackfriars.^ More plausibly, 
perhaps, the allusion to Blackfriars may indicate that the old 
theater was sometimes temporarily occupied b)^ other companies 
than the King's men. 

In the second place, it is very doubtful if the passages referring 
to the Cleve wars were written as early as 1609. The facts 
about the Cleve wars are as follows:" John William, Duke of 
Cleves, died March 25, 1609. A quarrel ensued in regard to 
the succession, and Leopold of Au.stria took possession of the 
capitol, Juliers. The assassination of Henry IV of France 
(April, 1 6 10), interrupted his plans against Austria, but on 
Sept. I, 1610, Prince Maurice of Orange took Juliers with the 
aid of troops supplied by France and the English forces then in 
the service ofthe States under Sir Edward Cecil. The "castCleve 
captain " * in the play must refer to the.se English auxiliaries, but 
they took no part in the war earlier than 1610, and there was in 
fact no fighting until 1 6 1 o. So, although the passages may date 
any time up to 16 14, when the wars closed, they could hardly 
have been written as early as December, 1609. 

There is still further evidence in this matter in several allu- 
sions to Cleve wars in Field's Woman is a Weathercock^ where 

iChr. I, 201. 

'^The Life and Death of John of Barnevelt. J. I,. Motley. Vol. 
I, 60-66. Rapin, Vol. IX, p. 324. 

3V, 4- *I, 2. 

86 



one of the characters is about to start for Cleveland. This 
play dates between Jan. 1610 and Nov. 1611.^ The reference 
in the Scornful Lady may well enough date at about that 
time. 

Other allusions in the play are indecisive as to date, but on 
the whole class it with plays at least as early as 1610-11. 
"Knights of the Sun, Rosicleer," ^ refers to \.h& Mirrour of 
Knighthood (1602), also alluded to in the Kyiight of the Burn- 
ing Pestle. There is also an allusion to Madcap, '^ a pamphlet 
by Nicholas Breton, also alluded to in the Coxcomb} A refer- 
ence to building a hospital recalls a similar one in the Woman 
Hater. '" There is one certain ^' and one possible ^ slur at Hamlet. 
The reference to the Apocrypha^ probably cannot refer to a 
discussion about the authorized edition as Mr. Fleay thinks. 

On the whole, while the allusion in the quarto to Blackfriars 
is puzzling, there is little question that the play is as early as 
1611. 

Wit at Several Weapons. First printed in folio of 1647. No 
actor-list. A passage in the epilogue at a late revival refers 
to Fletcher as the author and rather implies that he only wrote 
a part of the play. 

Mr. Fleay identifies it with the Devil of Dozvgate, licensed 
1623, but his reasoning does not enable me to see the slightest 
connection between the two titles. All the critics discover the 
work of one or more writers besides Fletcher: Mr. A. W. Ward, 
Mr. Macaulay, and Mr. Oliphant giving a share to Beaumont. 
Mr. Fleay assigns the play to Fletcher and Rowley, Mr. Boyle 
to Fletcher and an unknown; Mr. BuUen is reminded of Mid- 
dleton and Rowley. Admitting the possibility of a revision, 
I think it probable that a part of the original play was by 
Beaumont. 

A good deal of the play is in prose, where the determination 
of authorship is very precarious, but the Pompey part is much 
like the burlesque in the Knight of the Burning Pestle and the 
Womaji Hater and seems probably by Beaumont. In the 
verse scenes generally assigned to another author than Fletcher, 
the verse tests also agree with those for the Knight of the Bxirni7ig 

1 Fleay, Chr. I, 185. 

nv, I. 

311, I. 

^1,4. 

5 IV, 2. 
<5II, I. 

"Ill, End. 

^I, 2. "I'll hear no more of this Apocrypha; bind it by itself, 
steward." The Apocrypha was generally separated from the rest of 
the bible in English bibles, and the passage has only a general 
reference. 



87 



Pestle. -^ The proportion of double endings is a little large and of 
run-on lines a little small for the averages set up by the verse ana- 
lyzers of Beaumont's other plaj^s, but even in comparison with 
these there is no great discrepancy, particularly in the case of 
the first scene of the last act. If we remember that his work 
may be present only in an altered form, there is no improba- 
bilit}^ in assigning a portion of the pla5'to Beaumont. If there 
is any evidence of a date as early as 1611-12, the evidence of 
his hand becomes convincing. 

The internal evidence, although not convincing, seems to favor 
such an early date. In I, 2. Priscian, a pretended soldier is 
introduced as a veteran of twenty years service. He then goes 
on to state that his first battle was " Alcazar in Barbary, where 
Stukely fell and royal Sebastian." This was in August, 1578. 
He then goes on to tell of Sebastian's rumored escape and 
various journey ings, which were matters of common report,^ 
and next to describe his last battle, ' ' that memorable skirmish 
at Newport ' ' with special praise of the Scotch forces. This 
was July 22, 1600. The details given of the battle and the 
account of Sebastian make it probable that they were written 
not very long after 1600. Such a reference might have been 
made as late as 1620, but in thus padding his dialogue, a writer 
for the stage would be much more likely to refer to events still 
familiar to the public. 

In I, 2, the puppet show of Ninevah is alluded to as also in 
the Knight of the Burning Pestle,^ Bartholomew Fair,^ and 

^The Woman Hater is generally assigned to Beaumont alone, tlie 
Knight of the Burning Pestle seems to me also his in the main. 



IVit at Several Weapons, II, 2, 
" " " " 11,4, 

" *' " " V. I. 



Total, 
Percentage, 
Woman Hater, 
Knight of Burbling Pestle, 
Philaster, 

Percentage of V, i (Wit at Several 
Weapons) alone. 







RUN- 


LINES 


" W 


LINES 


221 


57 


43 


89 


25 


19 


151 


27 


26 

88 


461 


109 




21. 1 


19. 1 




17 


22.7 




23-2 


18 




15-2 


26.2 




18 


17.2 



Philaster serves 
fairly for Beau- 
mont canon. 



Mr. Boyle, whose figures I have taken in the above table, strangely 
assigns IV, 2 and IV, 3 to the second author (not Fletcher.) They seem 
to me clearly Fletcher's, as the verse tests strongly indicate. 

2 See Dyce. 

3III, 2. 

4V, I, (1614). 



88 



Every Woman in Her Hnmour} There is also an allusion * 
to " a pla}^ at the Bull t'other day," but the date of the open- 
ing of the Red Bull is uncertain. The scoff is similar to those 
in the Burning Pestle. An allusion to the two exchanges ^ must 
date after the erection of the new exchange. It was begun 
in 1608 and finished in 1609. This may be an addition of the 
late revisers; it is in the Rowley part as assigned by both 
Fleay and Oliphant. If in the first form of the play, that 
cannot be earlier than 1609. 

These last allusions would fit in well enough with a 1609-10 
date, although the speeches of the soldier would fit better a 
date several j^ears earlier. 

The Captain. First printed in folio of 1647. Played at 
court by King's men in winter 161 2-13.'' 

In the folio of 1679 the scenes are marked and the following 
list of actors given: Richard Burbage, Henry Condell, Wil- 
liam Ostler, Alexander Cooke. All four played in Jonson's 
Alchemist, acted by the King's men, 1610, and in Catiline, 161 1. 
Ostler joined the King's men from the Revels children proba- 
bly in 1608;^ Cooke died Feb. 25, 1614, and was 'sick of 
body' Jan. 30, 1614.'^ The date of the play is thus fixed 1608 — 
Jan. -March, 1613, date of court presentation. 

Mr. Fleay thinks the present version with the "scene, 
Venice, Spain," is an altered version made for the court per- 
formance. Fleay, Macaulay, Boyle, and Oliphant, all give 
Beaumont a share in the play, though they all think his share 
slight.' 

The song ' ' Tell me dearest what is love ? " is found in part 
in the Knight of the Btcrniyig Pestle ; the allusions to Lusty 
Lawrence and Don Diego are common in plays of this period 
and indicate nothing definitely in regard to the date. A pas- 
sage closely resembling one in the Faithful Shepherdess has 
been noted by Mr. Boyle,* 

The play cannot be later than 161 2, and a reasonable con- 
jecture is 161 1. 

Second Group. Plays fi'oni 1612 to 1618, inclusive. 
There is no convincing evidence that Beaumont had a share 

^410, 1609, acted 1602? (Fleay.) 

2 II, 2. See note p. 60 for date of opening Red Bull. 

8V, I. 

*So Fleay ; according to Oldy's Ms. note in Langbaine, May 20, 1613, 
but this date doubtless applies to the payment not the performance. 

^See p. 19 ante. 

6 See Memoirs of Principal Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare. J. 
P. Collier. Shaks. Soc, 1846, p. 187. 

''This play furnishes a good example of Mr. Oliphant's subtle analy- 
sis. He divides it between Fletcher, Fletcher and Beaumont, Beau- 
mont, Fletcher and Massinger, Beaumont and Massiuger, Rowley. 

^ Englische Studien, VIII, 40, Act I, sc. 3. 

89 



in any of these plays. They were written by Fletcher or by 
Fletcher in collaboration with other authors. In three plays, 
Henry VIII, the Tivo Noble Kinsmen, and Cardenio, there is 
evidence that he collaborated with Shakspere, and these plays 
have been discussed in connection with Shakspere' s plays of 
this period. Six of the remaining plays were acted by the 
King's men and have Hsts of actors in the 1679 folio, .so their 
dates are determinable with some certainty. Of the remaining 
plays, several afford no clue in respect to their date. They 
have _ no lists of actors and are possibly by other companies 
than the King's men, and are, therefore, assigned by Mr. Fleay 
to 1613-16, when he thinks Fletcher was writing for the Lady 
Elizabeth's men. We have seen how little evidence this sup- 
position affords. I assign these plays to the 1612-1618 period, 
because the 1619-1625 period is fully provided for, and because 
there is no evidence for dating them earlier than 161 2. I pre- 
sent notes only in the case of plays where Fleay 's conclusions 
require important modification. 

Four of the plays are of very doubtful date. 

The Bloody Brother ; or Rollo, Duke of Normandy. The play 
has sometimes been dated after Jonson's Neptune's Triumph, 
Jan. 6, 1624, because of a supposed imitation in Act II, scene 
2; but it is doubtful if there is anj^ imitation, and if there 
is, who was the imitator. Fletcher undoubtedly had a share 
in the play, and there is some ground for Mr. Oliphant's sug- 
gestion that the play was re-written more than once, but the ex- 
act authorship and the approximate date are both apparently 
insoluble. 

The Nice Valour; or the Passionate Madman in its present 
form is probably a revision, dating after 1624. Mr. Fleay 
dates the original play 1613, but his evidence is extremely 
doubtful. 

The Nightwalker; or the Little Thief ^zs licensed in 1633 
" as corrected by Shirley." Fleay's conclusion, that it was 
originally an early play for some other company than the King's 
men, is reasonable. A number of allusions to books (III, 3,) 
have not been identified, but may not " a new Book of Fools " 
be Armin's Nest of Ninnies, 1608? 

The Beggar' s Bush. Dekker's Bellman of Loyidon (1608) 
was evidently used by the authors, and this is the only safe 
clue to the date. 

The remaining plays of the group may be dated with more 
confidence. 

Love' s Pilgrimage. Folio, 1647; no actor-list. Mr. Fleay 
attempts to identify it with Cardenio (S. R. , 1653) and Cardenno, 
acted at court, 161 2-13. Not only does he advance no evi- 
dence to support this theory; he unwittingly disproves it. 
" That the date of the original play was 161 2, I have no doubt," 

90 



he says, and then goes on to state that it is founded on Cer- 
vantes Las das Donee/las one of the Novclas Excmplares, but 
these were first printed in 1613. The play, therefore, cannot 
ht ,Cardenio and must date after 161 3. 

Bondiica. Folio, 1643: list of actors in second folio. Field, 
who apparently joined the King's men about 16 16, is not on the 
list. Ostler is on the list, and his name appears in none of the 
1616-19 plays. For these reasons Fleay dates the play before 
1616. All of the eight actors on the list acted in Catiline, 161 1, 
and all but two, Ostler and Robinson, in the Loyal Subject, 
1618. The date, then, may be as early as 161 1 or as late 
as 1 6 16. William Eggleston, whose name is on the three lists, 
seems to have left the King's men for a period including 161 3, 
when he acted in the Honest Maji' s Revenge with the L,ady 
Elizabeth's men. Cooke and Hemings acted in Catiline but 
not in Bonduca : Cooke died Feb. 25, 1614. Thus it seems 
probable that Bondiica was first played after Cooke's retire- 
ment and after Eggleston's return from the Lady Elizabeth's 
companj^: i. e., 1614-1616. 

V^alentinian. The actor-list points to a date very close to that 
of Bonduca. 

The Kfiight of Malta. There can be no doubt that this 
play like others which have both Field and Burbadge on 
the list, dates 1616-19. Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Boyle, how- 
ever, both found evidence of Beaumont. They did this in 
ignorance of the late date of the play; Mr. Fleay gives their 
Beaumont portion to Field. Mr. Oliphant is in doubt between 
Field and Beaumont and gets out of the difficulty by consider- 
ing the play a revised version by Fletcher, Massinger and Field 
of an old play by Beaumont. Some parts of the play certainly 
remind one of Beaumont, but there is no safe ground for Mr. 
Oliphant' s hypothesis. 

Third Groiip. Plays from i6ig to 162^, inclusive. 

In this group w^e are able to determine the dates with certain- 
ty and definiteness. Moreover, so many plays must be assigned 
to these seven years, there is small probability that any other 
plays belong here. I have added nothing to Mr. Fleay 's re- 
sults and substracted little. The dates before 1622 are deter- 
mined by the actor-lists or court presentations; from 1622 on, 
we have the dates of licensing in Herbert's office book. 

The Wandering Lovers, licensed Dec. 6, 1623, is reasonably 
identified by Mr. Fleay with the Lover' s Progress. Two other 
non-extant plays. The Devil of Dowgate and the Unfortunate 
Piety, he identifies with Wit at Several Weapons and the Double 
Marriage, respectively; but these identifications seem to me 
very doubtful. The Coroyiation, one of a number of plays not 
licensed until after Fletcher's death, was printed as his in 

91 



1640 and again in the 1679 folio, but was claimed by Shirley. 

The Wild Goose Chase was first printed in 1652, and Sir John 
van Olden Barnaveldt in 1883. All the other plays were first 
printed in the folio of 1647. 

Concliisio7i. 

The following list gives the plays by groups and in a con- 

jecturally chronological order. The exact date of many of the 

plays cannot be determined. All plays in which either Beau- 
mont or Fletcher had a share are included. 

First Period. 

Woman's Prize; or, The Tamer Tamed. 1604? 

Wit at Several Weapons. First version. 1 605 ? 

The Woman Hater. 1606? 

Love's Cure, or The Martial Maid. 1606? 

Thierry and Theodoret. 1607 ? 

Monsieur Thomas. 1607-8? 

The Knight of The Burning Pestle. 1607-8 ? 

Four Plays in One. 1608 ? 

The Faithful Shepherdess. 1608? 

Philaster; or L,ove lies a-bleeding. 1608? 

The Coxcomb. 1609? 

The Maid's Tragedy. 1609? 

Cupid's Revenge. 1609-10? 

The Scornful Lady. 1610-1 1 ? 

A King and No King. 161 1 

The Captain. 161 1? 

Second Period. 

The Nice Valour; or the Passionate Madman. 1612?? 

The Night Walker; or the Little Thief. 1612 ? ? 

The Beggar's Bush. 1612?? 

Cardenio. 161 2-1 3 

The Mask of The Inner Temple. 1613 

The Two Noble Kinsmen. 161 3? 

Henry VHI. 1613 

The Honest Man's Fortune. 161 3 

Wit Without Money. 16 14 

Love's Pilgrimage. 1614 

The Faithful Friends. 16 14 

The Chances. 161 5 

Bonduca. 161 5 

Valentinian. 1615-16 

The Jeweller of Amsterdam. 1616-17 
The Bloody Brother; or RoUo, Duke of Normandy. 1617?? 

The Queen of Corinth. c 1617 

The Loyal Subject. 161 8 

92 



The Mad Lover. 


c i6i8 


The Knight of Malta. 


c 1618 


Third Period. 




The Humourous Lieutenant. 


c 1619? 


Sir John van Olden Barnaveldt. 


1619? 


The Custom of the Country. 


c 1619 


The Double Marriage. 


c 1619 


The Laws of Candy. 


c 1619 


The Little French Lawyer. 


c 1620 


The False One. 


c 1620 


Woman Pleased. 


c 1620 


The Island Princess. 


c 1620 


The Pilgrim. 


c 1621 


The Wild Goose Chase. 


c 1621 


The Prophetess. 


1622 


The Sea Voyage. 


1622 


The Spanish Curate. 


1622 


The Maid in The Mill. 


1623 


The Lover's Progress (The Wandering Lovers). 


1623 


The Fair Maid of The Inn. 


1623-4 


A Wife for a Month. 


1624 


Rule a Wife and Have a Wife. 


1624 


The Noble Gentleman. 


1625? 


Coronation. 


1625?? 


The Elder Brother. 


1624-5?? 



The Devil of Dowgate and The Unfortunate Piety are non- 
extant, and it is not certain that Fletcher had any share in 
them. 

In the eight years covered by the first group 1 have assigned 
sixteen plays; in the seven years of the second group, twenty 
plays (including one masque); in the seven years of the 
third group twenty plays and probably two others left un- 
finished. In the third group where the dates are fixed, Fletcher 
on the average wrote the whole or parts of three plays a year. 
The second period shows about the same average production, 
and the first considerably less. An examination of the entire 
chronology thus does not diminish the possibility of assigning 
other plays to the first period. The dates of a number of the 
plays in the second group are purely conjectural, and some of 
them might as well be assigned to the first period. The first 
versions of some of the later plays may also belong, as Mr. 
Oliphant thinks, in the first period. At all events the entire 
chronology strengthens rather than weakens the probability that 
sixteen plays at least can be dated before 161 2. 

Of the plays of the first group, without considering the 
eight I have conjecturally placed there, the eight certainly 

93 



acted before the end of 1 6 1 1 present such variety of theme and 
method that a considerable period must be allowed for their 
production. It is a long way, for example, from the immature 
burlesque and the experimenting in Jonson's manner of the 
Wojnaji Hate?' to such an original and brilliant comedy as the 
Scornful Lady. Beaumont's poetic development was certainly 
remarkably rapid, but when we consider that the plays which 
have given him a high rank among English poets and won 
him an immediate contemporary reputation among the first 
dramatists were probably all written by the close of i6i i, it is 
impossible to believe that his first play was produced so late 
as 1607. When we consider the range of plays written by 
Beaumont and Fletcher in collaboration, the success they at- 
tained, and the fame of their partnership, it is impossible to 
limit the period of their collaboration to four years. ^ Judging 
merely from their eight plays certainl)^ acted before 161 2, we 
might feel confident that Beaumont and Fletcher began writing 
earlier than 1607. In considering the few facts known of the 
lives of these two friends, we found a number of indications that 
they commenced their dramatic careers earlier than has generally 
been stated; and there was absolutely no reason to believe they 
had not commenced as early as the production in 1605 of Vol- 
pone to which each contributed verses. A study of their lives 
and plays amply substantiates the definite evidence furnished 
by the IVoman's Prize, Love' s Cure, and the Woman Hater 
that Beaumont and Fletcher were writing plays 1 604-1 606. 

Among the plays surely acted by the end of 161 1, we find 
four — Philaster, the Maid's Tragedy, Cupid' s Revenge, and A 
King and No King — which present a definite type. These, 
with the Four Plays in One, and TJiiej-ry and Theodorct, which I 
also assign before 161 1, form a series of romances which possess 
common characteristics. These plays, while showing marked 
similarities in material, characters, situations, and general 
treatment, present differences in versification and methods of 
construction which require more time for their production than 
Mr. Fleay assigns.^ Critics, for example, generally note the 
marked development in Beaumont's style from Philaster to the 
Maid's Tragedy. There seems, too, some ground for saying 
that the Four Plays mark the experiment, Philaster the devel- 
opment, the Maid's Tragedy the perfection, and Cupid's Re- 
venge the recapitulation; and similarly that Thierry and Theo- 
doret is an experiment in a form of which A King a?id No King 
is the more highly developed representative. Such conjectures 
aside, it is important to remember that these romances repre- 

'^Cf. Fleay who limits it to i6o8-i6ir. 

^Fleaj' places P/tilaster, the Maid's Tragedy, Cupid's Revenge, and 
A King and No King in the years 1610-11. 



94 



sent practically the whole of Beaumont's life work. While 
we must make due allowance for the precocity of his genius 
and of Fletcher's, we may safely conclude that their romances 
did not have their origin, development and perfection all within 
a year or two. An examination of those six plays must con- 
vince any one that our chronology is conservative in assigning 
early dates. ^ Plays like the Maid' s Tragedy and A King and 
No King are not written without some experimenting ; the six 
romances must cover a period of several years preceding 1611. 

This conclusion is of particular importance with reference 
to the date of Pbilaster. According to Dryden it was the first 
play of its authors that was popular, and no one questions that 
it preceded the Maid's Tragedy and A King and No King. We 
have also seen reasons to think it earlier than Cupid's Reveitge. 
These considerations support the generally accepted conjecture 
that the date of Philaster is as early as 1 608 . 

At all events, Beaumont and Fletcher had produced four, 
and probably six romances, by the time that Shakspere had 
written three, and they had written at least four, and probably 
ten, other plays by the end of the same period. They were 
then recognized as leading dramatists of the day. There is no 
certain early limit for the date of any of these sixteen plays 
except A King and No King and the Scornful Lady. Some of 
them were probably acted as early as 1604-5 5 ^^^^ of the ro- 
mances, Philaster is certainly not one of the latest. 

While we cannot be certain about the date of Cymbeline, the 
Winter's Tale and the Tempest were not acted until after 
Philaster. That play was certainly acted by the King's men 
while Shakspere was still writing for the company. So, prob- 
ably, were others of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays ; their fame 
was certainly high before he retired from the theater. Our 
investigation makes it probable that Philaster and other of their 
romances preceded any one of his. The bare facts make it 
clear, that, so far as the chronology is concerned there was 
opportunity for direct influence between Beaumont and Fletcher 
and Shakspere. 

1 Cf. Mr. Oliphaut's Chronology. 



95 



CHAPTER VI. 
The Drama, i6oi-i6ii. 

Before proceeding to examine and compare the romances of 
Beaumont and Fletcher and those of Shakspere, it is necessary 
to understand the condition of the drama when they were writ- 
ten. Only by a comparison with contemporary plays can we 
determine in what respects the romances of either Beaumont 
and Fletcher or Shakspere represent a distinct dramatic type. 
Certainly these romances were not complete innovations. By 
1609 very little will be found in plots, situations, or types of 
character which had not been tried before. In the thirty pre- 
ceding years, a host of ingenious play-wrights had been ex- 
perimenting with new forms and developing old ones ; and by 
1609 the dramatists had a valuable fund of both experimental 
and successful work by which they were quick to profit. The 
romances of Beaumont and Fletcher belong to an advanced 
stage in the rapid development of the Elizabethan drama; they 
naturally owe much to all that had gone before; but we can 
judge of their novelty from a study of their immediate con- 
temporaries. 

A glance at the kinds of plays which prevailed on the stage 
when Beaumont and Fletcher began to write will also help us 
in answering other questions. Even if their plays form a dis- 
tinct class, were they not the natural outcome of manifest 
dramatic tendencies of the time ? Supposing that their ro- 
mances are found to resemble Shakspere's, may not this simi- 
larity be due to the fact that romantic plays were common at 
the time, that many dramatists were experimenting in the 
field, that romance was in the air ? If the resemblance between 
the two sets of romances can be established, can we argue that 
one must have been the cause and the other the effect ? Evidently 
such questions can be convincingly answered only by reference 
to the plays acted before and during the years of the romances. 

From 1 60 1 to 1609, from Twelfth Night to Cynibeline, we 
know that Shakspere was writing plays very different in most 
respects from his romances. During that period Beaumont 
and Fletcher were beginning their dramatic careers and trying 
various kinds of plays. Possibly as early as 1607 they pro- 
duced their first romance ; by the end of 1 6 1 1 , they had pro- 
duced the six plays which for our purpose exemplify the type. 
By this time Beaumont had apparently finished his dramatic 
work, and the reputation of both men before the public and 

96 



among their fellow-poets was very high. Shakspere's three 
romauces were produced with some certainty in the years 1609- 
i6i I. Hence the period which we must examine for plays of- 
fering resemblances to the romances and for any influences 
which might have led to the romances is the decade preceding 
161 1. That will take us back to the time when Shakspere 
turned from English histories and romantic comedies to trage- 
dies and to several years before Beaumont and Fletcher began 
to write for the stage. It is not likely that they were influ- 
enced very extensively by plays earlier than 1601. Many of 
these were to be read in quartos and some still held the stage, 
but Beaumont and Fletcher shared with some other dramatists 
of the time in a growing consciousness of the requirements 
and possibilities of their art and certainly had no intention of 
returning to the practices of earlier days. They were young 
men, the avowed disciples of Jonson, and apparently on friendly 
terms with Chapman, Webster, and Shakspere, and they wrote 
their most successful plays for a company which was then pro- 
ducing many of Jonson' s most carefully wrought dramas and 
Shakspere's great series of tragedies. They began to write, 
moreover, just at the culminating time of the Elizabethan 
drama. The period 1601-1611 is the period of Dekker, Hey- 
wood, Middleton, Chapman, Webster, of Jonson's best work, 
and of the full maturity of Shakspere's genius. An examina- 
tion of the plays of these years will certainly show various in- 
fluences which acted on Beaumont and Fletcher and will also 
include all the data necessary for determining to what extent 
they produced a new type of romantic drama. 

Such an examination to be absolutely thorough would in- 
volve a research into the chronology of all the plays of the 
period. I cannot attempt this and must rely on the investigations 
of others, especially those of Mr. Fleay, Fortunately, how- 
ever, we can obtain a practically exhaustive list of the extant 
plays which were first acted in this decade 1601-1611. Hen- 
slow's Diary 1 601-1603, the lists of plays published on the 
breaking up of the various children's companies, Jonson's state- 
ments in the folio edition of his plays, and the researches of 
Shaksperean students furnish a good deal of indisputable evi- 
dence. Probably the only plays which we shall be in danger 
of omitting are some which may have been first acted in this 
period but were greatly revised at a later date. We can cer- 
tainly obtain a fairly accurate idea of the kinds of plays which 
prevailed in the decade. Here I shall endeavor to include in 
a rough classification all the extant plays which were probably 
acted in these years and such non-extant plays ^ as belong in- 
disputably to any one of the groups. I cannot analyze any of 

^Non-extant plays will be marked n. e. 

97 



these plays carefully, but a hasty grouping will be sufficient 
to indicate the important facts in this decade of the drama, and 
will show the relation of Shakspere's and Beaumont and 
Fletcher's romances to the rest of the drama. 

Some of the plays which were exceedingly popular had no 
direct connection with the work of either Shakspere or Beau- 
mont and Fletcher. .The latter wrote most of their romances 
for Shakspere's company, and they have only satire for the 
rude plays which entertained the audiences of the Cur- 
tain or Red Bull. A large number of plays preserved by 
name in Henslow's Diary (1601-1603) and some still later 
belong, so far as material and construction go, to the earlier 
days of Hieronimo and Stukely. They cannot, however, be 
neglected in a summary of the drama's history. 

A number of these can be classed as ' plays of adventures.' 
They were generally dramatic renderings of stories of travels 
and consisted of rudely connected representations of improbable 
and stirring adventures. In method they were similar to the 
chronicle-histories of ten years before. Their popularity and 
general style can be judged by this list. 

The Bold Beaiichamps. n. e. 

A Christia7i turyied Turk; or the tragicall lives and deaths 
of the two famous pirates. Ward and Dansiker. 

The Conquest of the West Indies, n. e. 

Fortune by Layid and Sea. (Plot partly from the accounts 
of the pirates, Clinton and Tom Watson.) 

The Four Prentices of London with the Conquest of Jerusa- 
lem. 

History of Richard Whittington. n. e. 

Siege of Dunkirk; with Alley n the pirate, n. e. 

Travels of Three Eiiglish Brothers. 

Beaumont and Fletcher wrote no plays of this class, but 
Pericles offers some notable resemblances to this type.^ 

Chronicle-history plays, dealing generally with events of 
English history, form another large class. Beaumont and 
Fletcher together never dealt with a topic from English history, 
and Shakspere's 77/(2r^^//z and Lear, while exhibiting many of 
the characteristics of the class, must be grouped with tragedies 
rather than histories. Heyiry VII f however, belongs with 
this group. Most of these plays were as rudely constructed as 
in the daj^s of Heyiry VI. 

Cardinal IVolsey's Life. n. e. 

Conquest of Spain by fohn of Gaunt, n. e. 

Earl of Harford, n. e. 

Honourable Life of the Humourous Earl of Gloster, and his 
conquest of Portugal, n. e. 

1 See Appendix. 

98 



If yoji knoiv not me, you know nobody, or the troubles of 
Queen Elizabeth. 2 parts. 

Life and Death of Lord Cromwell. 

Malcohn, King of Scots, n. e. 

Mortimer, n. e. 

Nobody and Somebody, with the true chronicle-history of 
Elidure. A revision (?). 

Philip of Spain, n. e. 

Richard Crookback. alterations, n. e. 

Rising of Cardinal Wolsey. n. e. 

Sir Thomas Wyatt, Fajnous History of. 2 parts. 
Whenyozi See Me, etc. (Henry VIII.) 

The Whore of Babylon. (Allegory of the Armada, etc.) 

We may also note here several other plays of a historical 
character. 

The Devil's Charter, life and death of Pope Alexander 6. 

King Sebastian of Portugal, n. e. 

The Unfortwiate Getieral, a French History, n. e. 

Four other plays may be classed as spectacular entertain- 
ments, although Dekker's^zV be 7iot good— \s\n^2ixt2i satirical 
comedy. 

England's foy. 

The Golden Age, with the loves of Jupiter and Saturn. 

Necromafites. n. e. 

If it be not good, the devil is hi 7. 

We come now to the tragedies of the period. In the years 
just preceding 1601, domestic tragedies, founded on actual 
contemporary murders, were very popular. Plays of this type 
were also presented after 1600, and one of them, the Yorkshire 
Tragedy, has on considerable external evidence sometimes been 
assigned to Shakspere. 

The Bristol Tragedy, n. e. 

The Chester Tragedy. (Randal, Earl of Chester.) n. e. 

The Miseries of Enforced Marriage. 

The Yorkshire Tragedy. 

Under the head of ' tragedies of blood,' a large number of 
Elizabethan plays may be included. One of the most important 
species of this genus is the tragedy of revenge, generally based 
on the revenge of a father for a son, like the Spanish Tragedy, 
or the revenge of a son for a father, like the original Hamlet. 
Marston's two plays, Antonio ayid Mellida and A^itonio' s Re- 
venge, in 1599, contributed to this species ; and Shakspere' s 
Hamlet may have been produced in response to the stage de- 
mand for plays of this sort which was apparently strong in 
1600-3. I'he familiar story of a sou's revenge on his father's 
murderer certainly stirred the imaginations of lesser men as 

L.«fC. 



well as Shakspere. Plays based on this plot, all probably be- 
fore 1604, are : 

Jouson's Additions to the Spajiish Tragedy. 

The Atheist's Tragedy. 

Hamlet. 

Hoffman. 

Other tragedies of blood, in which the motive of revenge 
plays a leading part are : 

Bussy D' Ambois. 2 parts. 

Byron. 2 parts. 

The Duchess of Malft. 

The Revenger* s Tragedy. 

The White Devil. 

These plays contain much intrigue, many physical horrors, 
and many deaths; and deal with revenge, ghosts, insanity, and 
utter villainy. The tragedy of blood, then, received develop- 
ment from Tourneur, Chapman, Webster, and Shakspere. It 
was a very important and a fairly distinct type throughout 
this period, but it exercised very little influence on Beaumont 
and Fletcher. Their romances do not exhibit ghosts, church- 
yard scenes, many assassinations; nor do they elaborate stories 
of revenge.^ They do not lack in murder and intrigue, but 
Thierry and Theodoret is the only one which could be placed 
in the most liberal classification of tragedies of blood. There 
are practically no signs of that type in Philaster, the Maid's 
Tragedy, and A King and No King. 

Tragedies with subjects from classical history form another 
class of plays popular in this decade and include among their 
authors Marston, Jonsou, and Shakspere. Fletcher later wrote 
Valentinian, but while working with Beaumont made no con- 
tribution to this class. 

Antojiy and Cleopatra. Philotas. 

Appius and Virginia. Nero."^ 

Ccssar' s Fall. n. e. Rape of Lucrece. 

Catiline. Sejajius. 

Coj'iolanus. Sophonisba. 

Hannibal and Scipio. n. e. Timo7i of Athens. 

Julius CcEsar. 

These classes nearly exhaust the tragedies of the period. 
The extant plays which remain unclassified are: 

Cynthia' s Revenge, or Menander' s Ecstasy. 

The hisatiate Coujitess. 

Lear. 

Macbeth. 

Othello. 



^See, however, Four Plays in One, p. 85, ante. 
2 Possibly not acted. 



The Seco7id Maiden'' s Tragedy. 

The Turk, with the Death of Borgias, etc. 

Two of these, the Insatiate Countess and Second Maiden^ s 
Tragedy, were not acted till 1611 or later. Others might have 
been classed in other groups. Lear, for example, might have 
been placed either with the chronicle-histories or the tragedies 
of blood. Two other tragedies, probably to be dated later than 
161 1, were, according to Mr. Fleay, acted in some form in this 
period: the Noble Spanish Soldier and the Virgi?i Martyr. 
Finally, three non-extant plays on biblical themes should be 
grouped together. 

Jephtha. n. e. 

Joshua, n. e. 

Samson, n. e. 

None of these plays can be suspected of influencing to any 
extent the romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

In all the tragedies we find no prototypes of Beaumont and 
Fletcher's romantic tragedies, but on the contrary the pre- 
vailing types, tragedies on classical themes and tragedies of 
blood, are differentiated in kind from such plays as the Maid's 
Tragedy, A King and No King, and Philaster. They also differ 
in kind from Shakspere's romances. They do not even offer 
any hint of such combinations of tragic and idyllic elements 
as we find in both sets of romances. One characteristic which 
distinguishes most of these tragedies will further illustrate 
their wide divergence from the romances. Since the time of 
Marlowe's Tamberlaine, English tragedies had generally pre- 
sented the life and death or the revenge of some central figure 
who dominated the stage during most of the five acts and who 
gave his name to the play. This character usually had a part 
suited to violent action and stirring declamation; about him 
centered the entire interest of the play. This general form 
prevailed through the period 1601-1611 as the mere names of 
Shakspere's tragedies will testify — King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, 
Coriolanus — or the names of most of the tragedies of varying 
X.y'^&s,— Bussy D'Ambois, Byron, Sejanus, Catiline, Hoffman, 
Samson. Even this general characteristic will not be found to 
distinguish the romances of either Shakspere or Beaumont and 
Fletcher. Even without a careful analysis of the leading traits 
of the romances, we may safely call them innovations in the 
field of tragedy. They did not change or develop the old 
types. Those continued to exist as recognized dramatic forms 
for many years. Fletcher himself wrote tragedies dealing with 
English and classical history as late as 161 6, and long after- 
wards Shirley's Cardinal reproduced most of the features of 
the revenge species of the tragedy of blood. So far as trage- 
dy was concerned, the romances were simply an unexpected 
departure. 



We come now to corned}', in which the most important in- 
fluence during this decade seems to have been Jonson's. In 
the well-known prologue to Every Man m His Humour (1598), 
he made open war on the chronicle-history pla5's and declared 
his intention to present one play such as other plays should be, 
with 

"deeds and language, such as men do use, 
And persons such as comedy would choose. 
When she would show an image of the times 
And sport with human follies, not with crimes." 

In this play he initiated the comedy of humours which he 
established in a series of remarkable plays and defended and 
explained in various prologues and addresses. Most of the 
comedies written in the first decade of the new century seem 
to have profited by his precept and example. Their predomi- 
nant trait is realism. 

It is difficult to classify them. Many are mainly satirical 
in purpose. Some of these, like the Poetaster, contain personal 
satire and are connected with the ' ' war of the theaters' ' ex- 
isting at the beginning of our period; others indulge in a more 
general satire of lyondon manners and morals. Some, like 
Jonson's plays, are devoted to the elaboration of humours; 
others might be classed as comedies of intrigue, carrying on 
the plots inherited from Plautus and Terence, but containing 
a good deal of humoristic caricature. Others deal less satiri- 
cally and more sympathetically with domestic scenes and mo- 
tives. Some few are sentimental comedies. In any arrange- 
ment the classes will not be wholly exclusive, but they will 
show that the comedies of the period were not romantic in 
character but were satirical, realistic, and domestic. 

After Jonson, Middleton is the most important contributor 
to the comedy of this period, and his career illustrates the 
prevalence of realistic comedies of manners. About 1600 he 
was writing comedies more or less romantic, with scenes in 
foreign places and involving a mixture of tragic and comic 
events. Of this class are the Old Laiv ( 1599-1600) and Blurt, 
Master Constable (i 600-1 601); but even these plays abound 
in satirical pictures of London manners. From the beginning 
of our period to its close his comedies are invariably social 
satires; the Phoenix, the only one with a romantic plot, being 
especially satirical. The others are all comedies of manners 
with realistic plots of intrigue and with the scenes in London 
or vicinity. A Mad World, My Masters, the Phoenix, Five 
Witty Gallants, the Family of Love, A Trick to Catch the Old 
Ofte, and Michcelmas Term were all published by 1608 and were 
acted during the five preceding years by the Pauls or Revels 
boys. Nor did Middleton's comedies of manners cease then. 
Two others, A Chaste Maid of Cheapside, and No Wit, no 



Help like a Woman'' s may be dated somewhere in the ensuing 
five years. A Match at Midnight and the Puritan, also come- 
dies of manners with scenes in London, were probably written 
by Middleton during the years 1601-161 1;^ and The j^c»ar/w^ 
Girl, which he wrote in collaboration with Dekker, is a realistic 
comedy of London life but treats its theme more sympatheti- 
cally than any other of Middleton's. His great contributions 
to the romantic drama come much later. During the years 
1601-1611 he was solely occupied with realistic comedies of 
lyondon life largely satirical in purpose. 

There are a dozen other comedies of the period which can 
be described, like Jonson's and Middleton's, as realistic come- 
dies, largely satirical in purpose. Chapman's comedies, like 
Volpone, treat of English manners under foreign names, but 
most of the others have their scenes in England. Some are 
mere comedies of intrigue without much satirical purpose, but 
none are sympathetic in their description of English life and 
none have any points of similarity with romantic comedies like 
Much Ado and Twelfth Night. Some of Beaumont and Fletcher's 
early comedies which might be included in this list will be 
spoken of later; it includes all other satirical and realistic 
comedies of the decade. 

The Alchemist. No Wit, no Help like a 

All Fools. Woman's. 

A Chaste Maid of Cheapside."^ The Phoenix. 
Cupid's Whirligig. The Poetaster. 

The Devil' s Law Case. The Puritan. 

The Dutch Courtesan. Ram Alley. 

Epiccene. Satiromastix . 

Every Woman in Her Humour. Sir Giles Goosecap. 
The Family of Love. Tale of a Tub. 

The Fawn. A Trick to Catch the Old One. 

Five Witty Gallants. Volpone. 

The Fie ire. ^ Westzvard, Ho! 

Greene' s Tu Quoque. What You Will. 

A Mad World, My Masters. The Widow's Tears. 
A Match at Midnight.'^ The Wise Woman of 

May Day. Hodgsdon. 

Northivard, Ho! 

In some other domestic and realistic comedies of the time, 
the purpose is not at all satirical but rather a sympathetic 
portrayal of various phases of English life. The best of these 

^See Fleay Or. and Bullen's edition of Middleton; introduction, 
Ixxix. 

■■^Possibly later than 1601. 

^The classification of this curious play is especially difficult. It is 
a sort of tragi-comedy, but the scene is London and the purpose, so 
far as there is any, seems to be largely satirical. 

103 



is Hey wood's sentimental comedy, A lVoma?i Killed with Kind- 
ness. Most of the others are less masterly in treatment and 
are devoted to the exploitation of some trade or of some es- 
pecial feature of London life. Some, like Dekker's Honest 
Whore, are in a considerable part satirical and contain carica- 
tures like " the humours of the patient man," which form the 
snb-plot of that play. All are realistic in contents and treat- 
ment, and their domestic character separates them entirely 
from the romantic drama. 

Eastward, Ho! 

The Fair Maid of Bristow. 

The Fair Maid of the Exchange. 

The Honest Whore. 2 parts. 

How to Choose a Good Wife from a Bad. 

The London Prodigal. 

The Merry Devil of Edmojiton. (Perhaps earlier than 1601.) 

The Roari?ig Girl. 

A Shoemaker is a Gentleman. 

Six Clothiers. 2 parts, n. e. 

Six Yoemen of the West. n. e. 

A Woman is a Weathercock. 

A Woman Killed with Kindness. 

The comedies of the period might be classified in other ways. 
In the early years of the century there was a series of plays 
dealing with conflicts between wives and husbands — A Woman 
Killed with Kindness, the Honest Whore, with the hnmoiirs of 
the patient man, Patient Grissel (1599), Medici7ie for a Cjirsed 
Wife (n. e. ), Shakspere's Taming of the Shrew (revised after 
1600), and Fletcher's Woma^V s Prize. Another group might 
be made of plays which are concerned chiefly with satire of 
citizens' wives; another group from plays presenting scenes 
in houses of ill fame. There are also some plays which must 
be classed as romantic and not as realistic comedies. Before 
passing to these we must note that all the comedies so far 
mentioned are absolutely distinguished in kind from the ro- 
mances. 

The prevalence of realistic comedy, however, had its effect 
on Beaumont and Fletcher and also on Shakspere. Toilus 
and Cressida, while dealing with a classical theme like the 
tragedies, certainly shows signs of the satirical impulses which 
dominated the poets of the time. Measure for Measure, while 
it must be classed with the tragi-comedies of the period, deals 
in its comic scenes with the same phases of life as many of 
Middleton's comedies. According to our chronology the first 
three plays by Beaumont and Fletcher belong to the class of 
comedy of manners — the IVoman's Prize, Wit at Scvrral 
Weapo7is, the Woman Hater — and the last is decidedly in Jon- 
son's manner. The Knight of the Burning Pestle, though of an 

104 



original species, is certainly in the satirical genus. Three 
other of their comedies of this period have their scenes in 
London — Monsieicr Tho?)ias, the Scornful Lady, and the Cox- 
comb. The first two are farces dealing with manners; the last 
contains a sentimental love-story similar to those in the ro- 
mances and may be considered with Love's Cure and the Cap- 
tain as examples of romantic comedy. 

It is among the romantic rather than the realistic comedies 
that we should naturally look for any influences leading to the 
romances, but there are almost no romantic comedies in this 
period. Three of these by John Day form a class by them- 
selves — Isle of Gulls, Humour out of Breath, Law Tricks. They 
abound in satire, some of which seems to have been personal, 
but each has a romantic plot with many fantastic elements. 
Some of the incidents, the wit-combats, and the balancing of 
lovers and ladies remind us of Lyly's comedies. They are 
artificial. Arcadian fancies, distinguished by much lively hu- 
mor and quite unlike any other plays of the time. They are 
also very difierent from the romances. Middleton's Phoenix, 
and some of Chapman's realistic comedies have already been 
mentioned as containing some romantic elements; in two others 
by Chapman, these elements are sufficient to warrant the term 
romantic comedy. Monsieur D' Olive is a sort of romantic 
comedy of humours of no interest in connection with the ro- 
mances, but the Gentlemaji Usher is one of the few plays of the 
period with sufficient mixture of tragic and comic events to be 
classed as a tragi-comedy. 

The most noticeable thing about the tragi-comedies of this 
period is their scarcity. There are few to be placed with 
Philaster, A Ki7ig and No King, Cymbelifie, a Winter's Tale, 
and the Tempest. Many of the plays, to be sure, contained 
some mixture of tragic and comic scenes, and the histories 
and plays of adventure combined a great variety of incidents, 
but the tragedies were mostly very tragic and the comedies 
satirical or farcical in tone. Some of the domestic comedies, 
notably A Woman Killed with Kindness, appealed chiefly to 
the emotion of pity, and some of the satirical comedies had 
touches of tragic sentiment; but these are hardly more than 
the exceptions which prove the rule. There are very few plays 
which combine tragic and sentimental stories and lead them to 
a happy ending after the fashion of Shakspere's earlier come- 
dies or of a chronicle history Vik.^ fames IV. There are almost 
no romantic tragi-comedies. In fact, including Measure for 
Measure there are only five which offer the slightest generic 
resemblance to the heroic tragi-comedies like Philaster and the 
Winter' s Tale. One of these, A Poor Man' s Comfort, was 
probably not acted until after 1611, certainly not early enough 
to have influenced Beaumont and Fletcher; the others are the 

9 105 



Gentleman Usher, the Dumb Knight, and the MalconteJit. The 
Gentleman Usher contains a mixture of humouristic pictures 
of manners, of a sentimental love stor}^ and of the tragic ac- 
companiments of the loves of the old duke and his son for the 
heroine. The ending is happy. The Dtunb Knight has a by- 
plot of intrigue with the usual satire on lawyers and the morals 
of city wives, but the main-plot is heroic and romantic. The 
long declamations, the two trials by combat, and the general 
method of construction differentiate it distinctly from Beau- 
mont and Fletcher's work. The Malcontc7it resembles Beau- 
mont and Fletcher's romances in one particular; it deals with 
events wholly tragical and leading to a tragical conclusion 
which is unexpectedly changed to a happy ending. The ma- 
terial, however, is that of a tragedy of blood after the style of 
Antonio and Mcllida and quite unlike Shakspere's or Beau- 
mont's combination of tragic and idyllic incidents. Measure 
for Measure hardly needs comment; no one would think of 
finding close resemblances between it and any one of the 
romances. 

We are not to discuss here the characteristics of the ro- 
mances, and we need not pause to distinguish them further 
from these tragi-comedies. The few examples of this class 
show that there was almost no experimenting with romantic 
material. Even the sentimental love story so prominent in the 
romances of both Beaumont and Fletcher and Shakspere fell 
into disuse. Of course there were love stories, but there were 
not many sentimental heroines who suffered everything for 
their lovers in the drama from 1601 to 1608. Even girls in 
boys' clothing were rare, though they were plentiful enough 
before 1601 and equally common in plays by Fletcher and others 
after i6ii. When a woman does appear in boys' clothes, as 
in the Honest Whore, the Dumb Knight, May Day, and Ram. 
Alley, she bears far less resemblance to the heroines of the 
romances than do the earlier heroines of Shakspere, or Greene 
or even Lyly. Shakspere was not alone in abandoning the 
love-lorn maiden and the romantic incidents attaching to her 
situation. During the years following 1600, most of the drama- 
tists were engaged on material where the boy and girl love 
story had no opportunity for prominence. In fact, to find any 
close resemblance to the material of the romances, we must 
go to plays acted before 1601. The method of Greene's /a w^.y 
IV'\s twenty years behind that of the romances, but its stories 
of violent passion and sentimental love offer more resemblance 
to the material of the plots of Philaster and CymbeltJie than 
anj'thing by contemporary dramatists in the years 1601-1611. 
The list of all the plays in this period which can be classi- 
fied as romantic comedies or tragi-comedies will again em- 
phasize their scarcity. 

106 



Alls Well that Ends Well. (Probably before 1601.) 

The Captain. 

The Coxcomb. 

The Dumb Knight. 

The Gentleman Usher. 

Humour ont of Breath. 

The Isle of Gulls. 

Law Tricks. 

Love's Cure. 

A Poor Man' s Comfort. (Probably after 161 1.) 

The Malco7itent. 

Measure for Measure. 

Monsietir D' Olive} 

Of these thirteen plays, two belong outside the period or on 
its extreme limits, three are a peculiar sort of comedy by Day, 
four more are by Shakspere or Beaumont and Fletcher. One 
of these, the Coxcomb, is properly a domestic comedy, but is 
included here because its sentimental story is closer to the 
romances than any other plays on the list. Four plays remain. 
They certainly demonstrate the barrenness of the period in any 
plays which would stimulate or suggest any return to the ro- 
mantic comedies of the previous century or a development of a 
new romantic type of heroic tragedies and tragi-comedies. 

Our examination of the plays of the central period of the 
Elizabethan drama reveals several facts of importance for our 
main investigation. We have found that the important con- 
tributions to the drama were either satirical and realistic come- 
dies or thorough-going tragedies of fairly definite classes. In 
the development of realistic comedy, Dekker, Heywood, Mid- 
dleton, and Jonson contributed. Chapman, Tourneur, Web- 
ster, and Jonson, as well as Shakspere were writing trage- 
dies. There was very little romantic comedy, or tragi-comedy, 
and almost no plays which could be classed as heroic romances. 
There are only two or three unimportant plays which have even 
a few of the most noticeable characteristics of the romances — 
a mixture of tragic and idyllic events, a series of highly im- 
probable events, heroic and sentimental characters, foreign 
scenes, happy denouements. We are justified in concluding 
that when in 1609 Shakspere turned from tragedy to romance 
he not only departed from his practice of the past eight years, 
but also from the practice of his contemporaries during that 

'^Pericles, which might be included in this list, seems to me to belong 
rather with the plays of adventure. With this list we have classified 
all the extant plays of the period with the exception of a few closet 
dramas which were not acted ; Daniel's Queen's Arcadia and Fletcher's 
Faithful Shepherdess, pastoral plays on the Italian model ; and Two 
Maids of Mortclake, apparently a history, which I have not been able 
to examine. 



107 



period.^ So far as we can determine, without anticipating our 
analysis of Beaumont and Fletcher's romances, we may con- 
clude that they also marked a distinct departure from contem- 
porary practice. 

The plays of other dramatists than Shakspere and Beaiimont 
and Fletcher indicate no promise of such a departure. With 
all the romantic plays of the preceding decade to draw upon, 
the dramatists in this period turned to farces, satires, and 
tragedies. Their work shows no influences working for a re- 
vival of romanticism; in the plays of the masters there is 
nothing to indicate that they would not continue to write his- 
torical tragedies and London comedies of manners for another 
decade. It seems clear that neither set of romances can be 
considered the direct result of dramatic forces or fashions ex- 
isting 1601-1611. So far as they constitute a development of 
a new type of drama, that development seems to have been the 
work of Beaumont and Fletcher or Shakspere. 

We can now examine the two sets of romances themselves 
and determine their characteristics and consider the questions 
howfar either constitutes a distinct type and what resemblances 
exist between them. If we find that Beaumont and Fletcher's 
do form a definite type similar to Shakspere's, we shall be free 
to face the further questions — did Shakspere influence Beau- 
mont and Fletcher or did they influence Shakspere? While 
we must keep in mind the influence of other types, of current 
fashions, of contemporary methods in which none of our authors 
may have been inventors, still we may feel confident that the 
appearance of the nine romances in the years 1 607-1 611 was 
due primarily to the innovation of either Shakspere or Beau- 
mont and Fletcher. 

^ An equally important conclusion may be drawn concerning his 
change from romantic comedies and chronicle-histories to tragedies, 
at about 1601. Here, also, he seems to have been following the general 
dramatic movement. Our investigation also suggests that his choice 
of themes from 1601 to 1608, and in some measure his treatment of 
them, were conditioned by the practice of the dramatists of the period — 
possibly quite as much as by his own personal experiences. In the light of 
contemporary plays, e.g., the difference between Measure for Measure 
and Twelfth Night certainly seems less significant of Shakspere's 
emotional experiences than has often been assumed. The fact that 
while his contemporaries were busy with satirical comedies he kept 
his plays so free from satire, perhaps affords a safer hint at Shakspere's 
personality and artistic emotions. 



108 



CHAPTER VII. 

Generai, Characteristics of the Romances of Beau- 
mont AND Fletcher. 

Six plaj'S by Beaumont and Fletcher — Philaster, Four Plays 
in One, Thierry and Theodoret, The Maid^ s Tragedy, Cupid'' s 
Revenge, and A King and No King ^ possess such marked re- 
semblances that they may fairly be said to constitute a distinct 
type of drama. This ' romance ' type is exemplified to a less 
degree in other of their plays; but these best illustrate its 
characteristics, and, as we have seen, were all probably acted 
before the close of i6i i. We shall examine them in order to 
discover their common characteristics and to note how these 
characteristics distinguish them from preceding Elizabethan 
plays. We shall consider in order their plots, characters, style, 
and stage effect. 

One interesting field of investigation we shall hardly touch 
upon — their indebtedness in particular scenes or details to pre- 
ceding plays and especially to Shakspere's. I shall try to show 
that in their main features thej^ were novel plays, and I shall 
compare them at every point with Shakspere's romances; but 
it is manifestly outside of the purpose of this investigation to 
consider all the debts of Beaumont and Fletcher to their pred- 
ecessors. They doubtless owed much, particularly to Shakspere. 
The scene between Melantius and Amintor in the Maid' s Tragedy 
(III, 2) seems imitated from passages between Brutus and 
Cassius, and Philaster has some obvious likenesses to Hamlet. 
I shall note such resemblances, however, only when they seem 
of importance in relation to my hypothesis that the romances 
form a new type of play. We must grant that Beaumont and 
Fletcher owed much to their predecessors, but we are particu- 
larly concerned with their own contributions to the develop- 
ment of a type. Their indebtedness to Shakspere's preceding 
plays may be cheerfully admitted to have been considerable, 
but the purpose of this investigation is to discover whether 
Shakspere owed anything to them. 

A. Plots. 

Beaumont and Fletcher, like all Elizabethans, took the 
material of their plots from wherever they could find it. They 

^ Beaumont probably had the larger share in these romances, but I 
shall not attempt to differentiate the work of the two partners. 

109 



did not, however, go to English or classical historic? ^ nor did 
they rel}^ on Italian novelle, but, perhaps following Jonson's 
example, they usually exercised great ingenuity in inventing 
plots. Thus, their most notable plays, Philaster,^ the Maid's 
Tragedy, and A King ayid No King, have original plots. Even 
when, as in Cupid's Revenge and Thierry ayid Theodoret, they 
found their material already in narrative form, they developed 
the action very freely by the addition of a number of incidents 
to furnish excitement and vicissitude. Often they devised 
unique and fantastic stories as in Love' s Cure, where the main 
action deals with a girl who has been brought up in the wars 
as a boy and a boy who has been brought up at home as a girl; 
or as in Monsieur Thoynas where the hero tries to convince his 
father, who desires him to be a rake, that he is a prig, and to 
convince his sweetheart, who desires him to be a prig, that 
he is a rake. The plots of the romances are equally ingenious 
and improbable, abounding in violent and unnatural situations. 

Even in their comedies Beaumont and Fletcher did not often 
base their plots on a satire of existing conditions, nor did they 
attempt to treat motives which .should find readiest illustration 
in incidents of contemporary life. In their romances there is 
still less of the realism which prevailed on the stage from 1601 
to 161 1. These have no relationship to comedies of intrigue 
or satires of London life or to domestic dramas of sentiment 
like Heywood's A lVo?nan Killed with Kindyiess. They deal 
with heroic persons and heroic actions, with kings and princes 
and noble soldiers, with queens and princesses, with conquests, 
and usurpations and revolutions and passions which ruin king- 
doms. But, unlike most Elizabethan plays dealing with similar 
material, they are not historical; nor do they deal with the 
well-worn motive of revenge. For tragic stories of royal per- 
sons, Beaumont and Fletcher did not go, like so manj^ of their 
contemporaries, to classical history; they went to the land of 
romance. They located their plays in any place far enough 
away to permit of strange happenings : in Angiers, Armenia, 
Austracia (all these places were scenes of their romances), 
Lycia, Rhodes. Messina, Milan, Lisbon, and Athens. The 
actions which go on in these places have little to do with the 
real life of any historical period, they belong to the land of 
romance — or rather to a stage which required strangeness and 
variety. 

The plots of the romances, however, have a certain uniform- 
ity. A story of pure, sentimental love is always given great 

^This is true only of the plays iu which Beaumont had a share. 
Fletcher used ancient and English history and Spanish novels. 

2 In this play they make use of the familiar story of a son's revenge 
for his father ; but this is slightly developed, and the main plot, so 
far as is known, is their invention. 

no 



prominence, and this is always contrasted with a story of gross, 
sensual passion. The complications arising from this favorite 
contrast of love and lust give an opportunity for all kinds of 
incidents involving jealousy, treachery, intrigue, adultery and 
murder. Each play has its idyllic scenes in which the pure 
and love-lorn maiden plays her part, and each play abounds in 
broils and attempted seductions and assassinations. While all 
this commotion is being aroused in the passions of individuals, 
thrones are tottering and revolutions brewing. The two main 
motives of sentimental love and unbridled sexual passion are, 
in fact, sometimes drowned out by the succession of violent 
emotions and the great variety of incidents. 

Not only did Beaumont and Fletcher seek after wide variety 
of action, they sought as well for variety of emotional effect; 
and this characteristic separates their work from that of con- 
temporary Elizabethan dramatists even more decidedly than 
does the range of their circumstantial invention. To be sure, 
the presentation in the same play of unrestrained passion and 
pretty sentiment, of mental agony and comic buffoonery, was 
common enough on the Elizabethan stage, but they indulge 
in such contrasts to a greater extent than preceding writers. 
In Marston's Malcontent, for example, one of the few tragi- 
comedies acted between 1600 and 1608, we have a tragedy of 
blood turned into a comedy. All the accompaniments of his 
tragedies appear : an adulterous woman, villainous men, in- 
trigue, stabbing, poisons, a masque disclosing the villainy, but 
the disguised duke prevents the intrigues of the villain and in 
his triumph forgives or refuses to punish instead of taking re- 
venge. The emotions excited have little variety, they are of 
the kind which usually accompany a tragedy of horrors. In 
Thierry and Theodoret, Beaumont and Fletcher were working 
with a narrative containing material similar to the Malcontent, 
a story of adultery, poisoning, blood, and horrors. Into this 
plot they introduced the story of the saintly Ordella, which 
supplies not only one of their best situations, but is full of 
sentiment and pathos. In this way they always present a 
variety of highly contrasted emotions ; they never construct a 
play about one central passion. Thus, except in the Triumph 
of Death and as a subsidiary motive in Philaster, they avoided 
revenge as a central emotion,-' although it had been used within 
a decade by Marston, Tourneur, Chapman, Webster, and Shak- 
spere. They did not write any tragedies after Marlowe's style 
with a central, predominant passion. None of their romances 
can be said to be a tragedy of jealousy like Othello, or a tragedy 
of ingratitude like Lear, or of ambition like Macbeth. Though 
they all involve contrasted love-stories, each deals with the 

^ Cf. the number of passages in their plays burlesquing Hamlet. 



most varied emotional results of these stories and with other 
emotions almost wholly disconnected. Thus Philaster exhibits 
irresolution of the Hamlet type, jealousy at least as poignant 
as Leontes: Megra's reckless effrontery, and Euphrasia's idyllic 
self abnegation, as well as the love of Philaster and Arethusa and 
the contrasted passion of Pharamond and Megra. In short, 
Beaumont and Fletcher did not trace out the sequence of emo- 
tions which would follow from an actual situation, they sought 
to contrast as many varying emotions as possible. They never 
strove to keep on one emotional key; they sought for an emo- 
tional medley. 

The plots of their romances, then, resemble one another in 
their two main motives but are for the most part original. In 
their avoidance of domestic or historical material, in their pref- 
erence for improbable and varied incidents, and in their 
preference for intense and varied emotions, their choice of 
material differs from that of their predecessors and is radically 
romantic. 

In their construction of this material into dramatic form there 
are also some distinguishing traits. The material of the ro- 
mances is enough to separate them as a class from the pla5's 
acted 1 601-161 1, and the construction on the whole is likewise 
divergent from Elizabethan practice. They did not observe 
the Ari.stotelian unity of action any more closely than their 
predecessors, but they did discard some archaic methods and 
thus secured a greater coherency of action. The old method 
of the chronicle histories was by no means dead in 1600. Not 
only does it appear in many of the crude historical plays of the 
time, it is also discernible in some of the great tragedies. 
Hamlet was described in the quartos as " a tragical history ' ' 
and Lear as "a true chronicle history; " and all of Shakspere's 
great tragedies follow in their construction the chronological 
outline of a historical narrative. Shakspere, to be sure, changes 
the order of events in Lear, adds new situations and characters, 
and arranges a new denouement; so did Marlowe in Tambur- 
laine, and all the Elizabethans deal very freely with historical 
facts. In a great tragedy like Lear, however, in spite of the 
advances over the days of Henry VI, the method is still that of 
linking together a number of scenes to represent a period of 
history or the events of a life. It retains something of the 
epical character of the construction of Henry VI and Ta?nbur- 
lai7ie ; moreover, camps, heralds, parleys, and battles supply, 
as in the early chronicle histories, a semblance of scenic effect 
and historical atmosphere. Beaumont and Fletcher in their 
romances utterly disregarded the methods of the chronicle his- 
tories. In Thierry and Theodoret, for example, all the battles 
and their accessories, with which the historical narrative is 
filled, are omitted, and the scenes are pretty closely confined 



to the palaces of the two kings. In all the romances, in fact, 
there is not a single battle, no army ever appears, there is but 
one camp scene, ^ and the action is mostly confined to apart- 
ments of the palaces. Beaumont and Fletcher had no thought 
of following in the least historical events, no intention of imi- 
tating history. They sought to present a series of situations, 
each of which should be interesting of itself and should con- 
trast with its neighbors, and all of which should combine 
suflSciently to lead up to a startling theatrical climax. 
There is nothing epical about their construction; it is not truly 
dramatic like that of Shakspere's tragedies where the action is 
in part developed from character; but it is skillfully suited to 
theatrical effectiveness. 

Such a method involved great care in the development of 
separate situations. They are not always developed with truth 
to life or consistency in characterization, but they always give 
an opportunity for variety and intensity of action. A girl 
disguised as a boy is stabbed by the man she loves; a woman 
convicted of adultery boldly defies her accusers and slanders 
the princess; a king is in love with his supposed sister; a king 
is persuaded to kill the first woman coming from a temple and 
encounters the queen, who is unknown to him — these are ex- 
amples of situations which Beaumont and Fletcher found suffi- 
ciently strong. They enveloped their princes and ladies in a 
series of bewildering and immensely stirring circumstances, 
and they developed each improbable circumstance into an 
effective theatrical situation. Each situation may not promote 
the main action; I am far from asserting for them absolute 
unity of action, but each situation has enough action of itself 
to have made it telling on the Elizabethan stage. 

Their by-plots are not very closely connected with the main 
plots and they frequently indulge in passages of poetic descrip- 
tion of the style that Mr. Wendell calls operatic, but both 
these lyrical interludes and the by-plots usually play a part in 
heightening the main action. Moreover there are practically 
no scenes in their plays like Act II scene 4 in Macbeth where 
the old man and Ross and Macduff discourse on the events of 
the preceding act; nor like the opening of Act III in Lear where 
Kent explains to the gentlemen the progress of the story; nor 
even like Act V, scene 2 in Hamlet where Hamlet narrates to 
Horatio the experience of his voyage. A comparison of Phi- 
laster and Much Ado will further illustrate Beaumont and 
Fletcher's development of circumstances into acting situations. 
In each play an innocent lady is basely slandered by a con- 
scienceless villain. In Much Ado we have an expository scene 
{I, 3) in which Don John confers with his accomplices, explains 

'^A King and No King. I. i. 

113 



his attitude and starts out in his villainy. In the next scene 
he appears again and begins his slandering (II, i, 160-180). 
The next scene (II, 2,) is wholly expository and explains the 
villain's scheme. Finally (III, 3), Don John brings his accu- 
sation against Hero before Claudio. In Philaste?- there are no 
expository scenes, Megra is detected in her crime and furiously 
overwhelms the king with her accusation against his daughter. 
(II, 4.) Beaumont and Fletcher rarely make use of a scene 
merely for narrative or expository purposes; in their romances, 
when once started, the action never stops. 

It cannot be asserted that in this respect Beaumont and 
Fletcher differ absolutely from their predecessors. I think there 
is, however, a difference in skill. Considered merely as oppor- 
tunities for variety and intensity of stage action, the situations 
in the romances can hardly be equalled. There is also a dif- 
ference in degree. Like Sardou and other romanticists of this 
century, and to a greater degree than other dramatists of their 
own time, Beaumont and Fletcher sacrificed atmosphere, charac- 
terization, and verisimilitude in their eagerness to secure the- 
atrical effectiveness. 

The care which they took to secure an effective denouement 
is another important element in their method and, like their 
care in the development of acting situations, must have con- 
tributed to the popularity of their plays. The denouement 
is never simple; it never turns out in just the way one would 
expect; it never has the inevitableness of great tragedy. 
On the other hand it is never, as in Measure for Measure, a long 
explanation of entanglements which the audience already 
understands. It usually does exhibit the lively variation of 
incidents, the succession of sharp surprises that we expect in 
effective melodrama. 

Take, for example, the denouement of the Maid' s Tj-agedy. 
The climax of the action is reached in the scene where the king 
is murdered by Evadne, his mistress, whom he had married to 
Amintor. A single scene ^ serves to unite the stories of Evadne 
and Aspatia, whom Amintor had forsaken for Evadne, and carry 
on the action to the final catastrophe. Aspatia, disguised as 
her brother, comes to Amintor, determined to provoke him to 
fight and thus to enjoy the sad pleasure of dying by the hand 
of the man she loves. He refuses to fight the brother of the 
woman he has wronged and laments his falseness to Aspatia. 
She goads him to fight and finally charges him with cow- 
ardice. Then he draws, and after a pass or two of the swords, 
she falls, apparently dead. Evadne then enters, " her hands 
bloody with a knife," and announces to Amintor that she has 
just killed the king and begs him therefore to grant her his 



114 



love. Amintor turns away, horrified by the two murders and 
the reawakened consciousness of his love for this guilty woman, 
whereupon Evadne stabs herself with the fine acting cry — 

" Amintor, thou shalt love me now again : 
Go ; I am calm. Farewell, and peace forever ! 
Evadne, whom thou hat'st, will die for thee." 

Amintor returning strives in vain to stay her fiand, and then 
soliloquizing over the two bodies, resolves to bear them com- 
pany, but long sbefore he dies to beg Aspatia's forgiveness. 
While he is speaking she revives and hears his closing lament. 
She lives long enough to make herself known and dies in his 
arms. 

" Give me thy hand ; my hands grope up and down. 

And cannot find thee ; I am wondrous sick : 

Have I thy hand, Amintor? " 

Then, after vainly striving to bring her to life, Amintor stabs 
himself. 

" Must I talk now? Here's to be with thee, love ! " 

Here we have a number of situations, some not uncommon 
on the stage, welded together in a denouement which is per- 
haps unequalled by any other in the Elizabethan drama in its 
power to hold the interest of an audience at fever heat. It 
holds this interest, moreover, after a scene of the greatest 
acting power; it solves the difficult dramatic problem of main- 
taining the interest from the climax to the catastrophe. And 
yet this is no more than a fair example of the care with which 
Beaumont and Fletcher invariably heightened their denoue- 
ments. While joining and contrasting a large number of situa- 
tions, involving all sorts of vicissitudes and misfortunes, while 
infusing each situation with dramatic power and advancing to 
an intensely powerful climax, they also seem to have been 
more careful than their contemporaries in the development of 
a striking stage denouement. 

Another marked characteristic of their romances is their use 
of tragi-comedy. The term had been in use at least since the 
days of Edwards's Damon and Pithias, " a tragicall comedy," 
licensed in 1567; and Elizabethan plays had been in general, 
as Sidney charged, neither right tragedies nor right comedies. 
There were many plays before 1601 with a mixture of tragic 
and comic material and many plays \\\.^ James IV ox Mzich Ado 
which introduced a happy denouement as the end of a tragic 
action. Few plays of this latter sort, however, are to be found 
after 1600 and before 1608-9; only four, in fact, are extant 
that could be classed as romantic tragi-comedies, the Gentle- 
man Usher, the Dumb Knight, the Malcontent, and Measure 
for Measure. Beaumont and Fletcher's use of tragi-comedy 

115 



was something of an innovation and it also involved some de- 
velopment in that type. 

This is shown by considering some of the characteristics we 
have alread}' noted in their material and construction. The 
excitation of a great variety of emotions, especial skill in de- 
veloping the chances for powerful action in each situation, care 
for an effective denoument — these are traits which mark a 
development in tragi-comedy as well as tragedy. Tragi-comedy 
is a term covering so many kinds of plays that it is difficult to 
differentiate Beaumont and Fletcher's contribution to that 
kind of drama from their contribution to the drama in general. 
We may, however, say that their tragi-comedies are especially 
distinguished from earlier ones by their constant and violent 
contrast of the varying emotions suited to tragedy with those 
suited to comedy and by their peculiar handling of the happy 
ending. 

They are constantly joining the emotions arising from senti- 
mental love with those arising from the most tragic circum- 
stances. Now in the tragi-comedies immediately preceding 
we have the tragic results of villainy converted into happiness, 
but sentimental love is not prominent. Impending tragedy is 
not always struggling with sentimental bliss. In Beaumont 
and Fletcher's hands, for example, Mariana's love-lorn devotion 
to Angelo would have been highly developed and formed a by- 
plot of the play, or perhaps Isabella would have been dis- 
tinguished by a sentimental devotion to some lover in the 
power of the villain. In Marston's Malcontctit, the gross pas- 
sion of Aurelia would have been contrasted with the pure love 
of some other woman; Malevole might have been accompanied 
in his retirement by some Bellario instead of being provided 
with a constant wife who remains in seclusion. 

To find a union of sentimental and tragic interest in romantic 
pla3's before Beaumont and Fletcher, we shall have to go back 
before 1600 to plays like Javies IV 2iXiA Much Ado. The ro- 
mances differ from these in the dramatic heightening of the 
conflict between the tragic and sentimental emotions. Much 
Ado is a sentimental comedy turned to tragedy by slander and 
jealousy and then to a comedy again by discovery of villainy. 
In James IV, unrighteous passion seems likely to lead to 
tragedy, but sentimental love conquers and brings about final 
happiness. In Philaster and A King a7id No King, sentiment 
has no such simple conflict with evil. Through the five acts 
pure love is constantly on the rack of tragic circumstances. 
One element of the plot of Philaster w^ill illustrate the com- 
plicated union of the emotions of comedy and tragedy. Philaster 
is in love with Arethusa, of whom he is jealous on account of 
Bellario, a page who is really a girl in love with him. This 
complication gives rise to a constant interchange of varying 

116 



emotions such as cannot be found in the early comedies or else- 
where, except, perhaps, in Cymbelme. To a degree which 
cannot be asserted of their predecessors, Beaumont and Fletcher 
fused together sentimental comedy and heroic tragedy. 

In the matter of the denouement, a comparison of the ro- 
mances with the preceding tragi-comedies of 1 601-9 will 
illustrate the contribution of Beaumont and Fletcher. The 
construction of the Gentleman Usher and the Dumb Knight is 
too crude to justify comment; in Measiu^e for Measure and the 
Malcontent there are some noticeable points of similarity. In 
each case there is a disguised duke who ferrets out the villains, 
and the audience understands from the first his disguise and 
purpose. The main action moves toward a tragic catastrophe, 
but in each play this is averted by the management of the duke, 
and the crimes of the villain are exposed and pardoned. In 
Meas%ire fo7 Measure the denouement is really a long explana- 
tion, in the Malco7ite7it it is managed somewhat effectively by 
a masque, but it is also merely an unravelling of an action 
which the audience understands from the start. 

In Philaster and A King and No King there is no such early 
divulging of the character of the denouement. From the 
varied nature of the situations through which the action is 
developed, a free chance is left to make it either tragic or happy. 
Skillfully elaborated after the authors' fashion, its happy char- 
acter comes as a telling surprise. It becomes the real climax 
of the action. Instead of a mere explanation with a pardon 
attached, the happy ending becomes in their hands a particu- 
larly effective and surprising culmination of a series of tragic 
situations. 

Up to the last scene their romances are all tragi-comedies in 
their mixture of contrasting emotions or they are all tragedies 
in the intensity with which the emotions are worked up to a 
tragic climax. Then the denouement follows, highly developed 
and tragic or happy as the case may be. The style of tragi- 
comedy which results seems to have been peculiarly their own 
and seems to have been the result of a more or less deliberate 
effort for stage-eflfectiveness. 

Now some critical knowledge of dramatic rules and types 
must be assumed in most of the leading dramatists writing as 
late as 1 607-11. We have already passed over evidence that 
the romances owe their characteristic traits to no uncritical 
consideration of dramatic rules and precedents. Fletcher 
working with Shakspere certainly produced in Henry VIII a 
chronicle history following the methods which he abandoned 
in the romances, and he also himself wrote historical plays. 
The freedom of the romances from either the material or the 
methods of historical plays cannot have been wholly undelib- 
erate. Beaumont early in his career wrote the Woman Hater ^ 

117 



a satirical comedy, and later that unique burlesque the Knight 
of the Burniyig Pestle. Fletcher early in his career wrote come- 
dies of intrigue dealing with English manners and a pastoral 
plaj' on Italian models. The change from such types as these 
to one so diverse as that of the romances cannot have been 
critically unconscious. Moreover all the main traits of the 
romances, like the use of tragi-comed3', seem to have been the 
result of careful striving for theatrical eifect. 

That the choice of tragi-comedy was deliberate may be further 
inferred, I think, from Fletcher's explanation prefixed to the 
Faithful Shepherdess, "a pastoral tragi-comedy." 

"A tragi-comedy is not so called in respect of mirth and 
killing, but in respect it wants deaths, which is enough to 
make it no tragedy, yet brings some near it which is enough 
to make it no comedy, which must be a representation of fami- 
liar people, with such kind of trouble as no life shall be ques- 
tioned: so that a god is as lawful in this as in a tragedy and 
mean people as in a comedy." 

This, so far as I know, is the first definition in English of a 
tragi-comedy. Perhaps, in view of their development of tragi- 
comedy, it is not straining this passage too far to say that 
Beaumont and Fletcher were the first to study the type and 
formulate its rules. 

Their style of tragi-comedy seems to have gained instant 
popularity in Philaster and A King and No King. It is easy, 
indeed, to see how popular such plays must have been with 
audiences who had no prejudices of taste against a mixture of 
opposite emotions, who demanded a representation of violent 
passions and tragic events, and who still must have had 
something of our modern sympathetic interest in the triumph 
of true love and the final happiness of heroes and heroines. 
Its popularity was, in fact, long continued. Though it fell 
into disuse for a number of years following 1600, yet after its 
revival by Beaumont and Fletcher and Shakspere it maintained 
its popularity until the closing of the theaters. Fletcher, after 
Beaumont ceased play writing, Massinger, and Shirley used it 
freely. After the Restoration it continued on the stage until 
the complete triumph of pseudo-classicism. Thus Dryden in 
his Essay on Dramatiek Criticism declares that the English 
" have invented, increased and perfected a more pleasing way 
of writing for the stage than was ever known to the ancients 
or moderns of any nation — which is tragi-comedy." 

While Beaumont and Fletcher were not the inventors of tragi- 
comedy, the}' were at least its increasers and perfecters. While 
here again they made use of the practice of their predecessors, 
their critical and effective use of the form had its effect on the 
later history of the drama. However we may estimate the 
importance of their particular development of the form, they 

118 



were certainly prominent in bringing about a revival of tragi- 
comedies and they produced two remarkable for theatrical 
success. 

With this use of tragi-comedy we have finished the important 
characteristics of the material and construction of the plots of 
the romances. We have seen that to a considerable degree 
each of these characteristics was an innovation and that each 
worked for greater stage effectiveness. Taken together they 
distinguish the romances from the preceding plays of the decade 
and go far to explain their popularity. Before going on to 
discuss their characterization and style, it may not be out of 
place to refer to the earliest play which exemplifies all these 
traits of the plots and to suggest that these traits are in them- 
selves enough to vouch for its originality and popularity. In 
its material, its construction, and its effective happy ending, 
Philaster xaw.'sX have attracted by its novelty and its acting quali- 
ties. No plays in the preceding ten years resembled it in these 
important traits, while these traits do reappear in the succeed- 
ing romances and in many other plays of the following thirty 
years. Like Tamburlaine and Every Man in His Hujuoiir, 
Philaster seems to have introduced a type of play of wide in- 
fluence in the drama. In it and the other romances we have 
already found considerable to support the statement of J. Ad- 
dington Symonds that Beaumont and Fletcher were ' ' the in- 
ventors of heroical romance. ^ ' ' 

B. Characterization. 

From the very nature of their plots these romances must 
lack individualization in their characters. They are not, like 
the historical tragedies, devoted to the presentation of real 
people; they are merely collections of situations which give 
vivid momentary pictures of passions. They do not, like the 
Duchess of Malfi and some other dramatizations of Italian 
novelle, imbue the bare situations with psychologic realism; 
they place the whole emphasis on situations and denouments. 
Their method of construction, therefore, does not favor consis- 
tency in developing character; it merely requires that the 
various characters be exhibited under exciting circumstances. 

Thus Philaster is at one moment confronted with the proffer 
of a kingdom; at another, confronted with a proffer of love 
from the woman he adores; at another, brought face to face 
with proofs of her faithlessness; at another so placed that in 
spite of his jealousy he will pardon both her and her supposed 
lover; and at still another, brought to such a pitch of fury that 
he tries to kill them both. Presented in so great a variety of 

1 The Mermaid Series. Christopher Marlowe. General introduc- 
tion, p. XXV. 

119 



moods, he necessarily loses individuality. He is at different 
moments an irresolute prince, a fervent lover, a jealous mad- 
man, and a coward who cannot fight; he is never a real in- 
dividual. In the same way most of the characters are pre- 
sented as the actors in a series of improbable incidents; Amin- 
tor in the Maid' s Tragedy and Leucippus in Cvpid' s Revevge, 
in particular, displaying an utter lack of consistency in delin- 
eation. 

Similarly, when the situations are made of chief importance, 
there can be no shading in characterization. All the people 
must be indubitably bad or indubitably good. There must be 
no doubt or hesitation in regard to their purposes, or the situa- 
tion will lose some of its effectiveness. They must be from 
the first far within or far without the pale of our sympathies. 
Their characters, in brief, must be exaggerated and intensified; 
and still further, since there is no better way to accomplish 
such exaggeration than by contrast, we may expect to find 
the verj' evil ones set oflf in sharp contrast with the very good. 

Take for example the women of the romances. Each play 
has one very evil woman and at least one very good one. The 
evil women, it must be confessed, have more individuality than 
any other of the characters, Evadne being about as living a 
piece of human flesh as was ever put upon paper; at the same 
time they are all extremely bad women. Arethusa, Ordella, 
Euphrasia and the rest are, on the contrary, extremely good 
and pure and lovable. In the same way, among the men we 
find a tendency to intensification and vivid contrast at the ex- 
pense of all semblance of reality. The heroes like Philaster 
and Eeucippus are very pure and generous and noble, and the 
bad men like Pharamond, Protald}^ and Timantius are so bad 
that they are inhumanly repugnant. These furnish, perhaps, 
the most marked examples of exaggeration and contrast. 

Again, the over emphasis placed on the theatrical effective- 
ness of the situations is likely to involve characterization by 
description rather than by strictly dramatic means. The 
writer who is striving after telling situations and who is care- 
less of individualization but desirous of producing intense 
contrasts in characterization, naturally finds that a character 
can be most effectively presented by the descriptions and com- 
ments of other persons. In this way, the interest of the 
audience is at once removed from the development of character 
and is centered on the development of plot. At the same 
time, the sympathies of the audience are from the first directed 
to the proper persons. Without pressing too far the natural 
connection between the tragedy, which depends largely on 
situations and this method of characterization by description, 
the latter may certainly be classed as a notable characteristic 
of Beaumont and Fletcher. 



For example, such a character as the love-lorn *maiden 
plainly requires something besides her action and words to 
gain immediately for her the sentimental sympathies of an 
audience. So Bellario, before she appears on the stage, is 
described by Philaster, in a speech of thirty lines, beginning : 

" I have a boy 
Sent by the gods, I hope to this intent. 
Not yet seen in the court." ^ 

In the same fashion, at the beginning of the Maid's Tragedy, 
Aspatia is described in the speech : 

" But this lady 
Walks discontented with her watery eyes 
Bent on the earth." 2 

In the first scene of the Maid's Tragedy, in fact, not only is 
Aspatia described by Lysippus in this speech of nineteen lines; 
Amintor is also described by Melantius in fourteen lines, and 
Melantius by I^ysippus in eight lines. Throughout the play, 
the characters will be found to be presented not only by stated 
descripti.Dns but also by frequent comments, eulogistic or 
denunciatory, from the other actors. 

Still another trait of the characterization requires especial 
notice. All the principal characters are people of the court ; 
even those who are utterly detestable hold positions of rank. 
When persons outside of the court are introduced, they are 
altogether vulgar and insignificant like the woodd|||^and the 
leaders of the mob in Philaster. This practice is J^^^rdance 
with the classical dogma that tragedy must deal^^V people 
of rank and it is in accordance with general Elizabethan 
practice ; but it is worth noting that Beaumont and Fletcher 
had only ridicule for the domestic plays and apprentice 
comedies of Hey wood and Dekker, and that they were long 
distinguished for their faithful presentation of gentlemen and 
courtiers. 

So far, then, we have noticed a few of the traits which dis- 
tinguish the characterization of the romances. Keeping these 
traits in mind — the court rank of the characters, their presen- 
tation by description, the over-emphasis of their predominant 
qualities, and the disregard for individual consistency — we can 
evidently sum up the result by saying that the characters are 
not individuals, but types. Remembering, too, that the plots 
of the romances have a generic similarity, we may expect 
these types to be repeated until they become conventionalized. 
In our discussion of the chronology of the plays, we have, in 
fact, already noticed that several types were repeated.* We 

^Philaster, I, 2. 
^Maid's Tragedy, I, i. 
^ Cf. ante, pp. 69 and 81. 



shall now change our point of view and leave the consideration 
of specific traits of characterization, in order to examine the 
conventionalized types which resulted. 

First, there are the love-lorn maidens : three of whom, 
Aspatia, in the Maid' s Tragedy, Urania, in Cupid' s Revenge, 
and Bellario-Euphrasia, in Philaster, masquerade in boys' 
clothing. Spaconia, in A King ayid No King, is of the same 
sort ; and Panthea, in A Kirig and No King, Ordella, in 
Thierry and Theodoret, and Arethusa, in Philaster, can hardly 
be distinguished from the others except by their royal birth 
and consequent suitability for marriage to the heroes. The 
other four, for some reason, cannot be married and con- 
sequently are embellished with all the sentimentalit}^ adherent 
to an unrequited passion. 

There had been many maidens of this general type on the 
stage since Elizabethan poets first began to dramatize Italian 
novels; and the type had been used very effectively, at least 
as early as the plays of Robert Greene. Examples from 
Shakspere's comedies will be at once recalled, and the senti- 
mental boy and girl love story had a place in aF i kinds of 
drama. For a number of years, however, before the romances 
of Beaumont and Fletcher, we have found that neither the 
sentimental love story nor the love-stricken maiden had been 
popular in the London theaters. Shakspere scarcely used 
the type from Twelfth Night to Cymbclinc, and the other lead- 
ing dramatists of the period likewise abandoned it. After the 
Beaumont>^Fletcher romances, the sentimental maiden had a 
new and'iofig lease of popularity. Thus, in altering Romeo 
and Juliet, Otwaj' made Lavinia (Juliet) wander from home, 
lose her way in the woods, meet her lover there, and offer 
her services, exactly like one of the heroines of Beaumont and 
Fletcher.^ They seem to deserve credit for the revival of the 
sentimental love-lorn maiden. 

At all events they developed the type beyond all their prede- 
cessors. They intensely sentimentalized the character. They 
emphasized over and over again the purity, the meekness, 
the utter self-abnegation of these maidens. They were made 
eager to serve when they could not marry and supremely de- 
voted under the most discouraging circumstances. Dorothea 
in James IV, who has won some praise for wifely devotion, 
would have to take lessons from Bellario who sacrifices herself 
for Philaster or his lady in every scene. For pure sentimen- 
tality Viola in Twelfth Night is a saucy school girl in com- 
parison with the watery-eyed Aspatia. The type had never 
before been presented so elaborately and with such exaggera- 
tion. 

^ History and Fall of Caius Marius. IV, 2. 
122 



upon these maidens is expended nearly all the lyrical poetry 
of the plays. The authors' poetic powers are fairly exhausted 
in an efibrt to overwhelm them with sentimental fancy, to 
present them as ideally perfect. However foreign such an ideal 
of womanhood may be to our modern taste, we must grant 
that its poetical presentation was by no means lacking in charm 
and beauty. 

Such presentations of ideal maidens are very different when 
read and when heard on the stage. They doubtless ministered 
to a taste for idyllic poetry and they are by no means separate 
from the principal situations, and the situation itself of a girl 
in doublet and hose seeking her lover was not then an entirely 
unreal convention.^ Just what charm this style of girl exer- 
cised on the stage is, however, difiBcult to explain, nor is it 
necessary. All we need to remember is that they have little 
individuality, that they are utterly romantic, utterly removed 
from life, dependent for their charm almost entirely on the 
poetry with which they are described; and further, that they 
form one of the most distinguishing features of the Beaumont- 
Fletcher romances. 

Secondly, there are the evil women: Evadne in the Maid's 
Tragedy, Bacha in Cupid's Revenge, Megra in Philaster and the 
two queen-mothers, Brunhalt in Thierry and Theodoret, and 
Arane in A Ki?ig aiid No Kiiig. Four of these brazenly con- 
fess adultery, and four attempt or commit murder. They are 
generally distinguished by an absence of all shame, and utter 
depravity. 

Thirdly, there are the lily-livered heroes, as Mr. Oliphant 
calls them. Philaster, Amintor, and Leucippus are so abso- 
lutely alike that they could, so far as they have any personality, 
readily be exchanged. They are all very loving, very noble' 
very generous; otherwise they have no characteristics which 
outlast a single situation. Thierry and Arbaces present a 
somewhat different type, in which ungovernable passion is 
largely emphasized. 

Fourthly, there are the faithful friends: Dion in Philaster 
Melantius in the Maid's Tragedy, Martell in Thierry and Theo- 
doret, Ismeneus in Cupid's Revenge, and Mardonius in A King 
and No King. The men of this type are always blunt coun- 
sellors, brave soldiers, and devoted friends. They possess a 
rough humor, an impatience of deceit, and an eagerness for 
action. There is scarcely an individual peculiarity among the 
five. 

Fifthly, there are the poltroons: Pharamond in Philaster 
Protaldy in Thierry and Theodoret, Timantius in Cupid's Re- 
venge, and Bessus in A King and No King. They are all cowards, 

^ See the English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare. J. J. Tusserand 
I/ondon, 1890. pp. 238-9. ■> j j 

123 



scoundrels, and beasts. Their baseness, however, is always a 
little relieved by humorous treatment. 

These five types thus include all the principal persons of the 
romances. Of course the examples under each type present 
some individual differences and also vary in vividness of por- 
traiture; Bellario, for example, is much more carefully drawn 
than Urania, and, as has been stated, Evadne has individuality 
enough. Nevertheless the resemblance among the examples 
of each type is unmistakable, and on the stage even more than 
in print they must have seemed to all intents identical. 

For further assurance of the favor in which the.se five types 
were regarded by Beaumont and Fletcher we may well recall 
our examination of CnpiiT s Revenge and Thierry and Theodoret. 
In both plays, it will be remembered, they developed the evil 
woman and the hero from slight hints in the prose narrative; 
and in both plays, with scarcely a hint from the narratives, 
they added distinctly drawn portraitures of the poltroon, the 
faithful friend, and the love-lorn maiden. Whether such repe- 
tition was deliberate or not, it could hardly have taken place 
unless the types of characters were popular on the stage. That 
they were, there can be little doubt. In spite of their lack of 
individuality they are presented with absolute distinctness, 
their predominant traits are unmistakably empha.sized, and by 
their very lack of individuality they are the better suited for 
violent acting and romantically impossible situations. 

C. Style. 

The attempt to separate the work of Beaumont from that of 
Fletcher has led to so thorough a discussion of the poetic style 
of each that any treatment on my part must be largely repeti- 
tion. Without attempting an)' exhaustive analysis, however, 
there are a few points which are of importance in distinguish- 
ing their styles from those of their predecessors and of interest 
in connection with the versification of Shakspere's romances. 
In order to examine these points it will be necessary to con- 
sider the two dramatists separately. 

Fletcher. The most marked trait of Fletcher's versification is 
the unparalleled abundance of feminine endings which often 
occur in a proportion of two out of three. Analogous to this 
is his use of redundant syllables in the middle of a line. The 
efiect of all this is to conceal the metre and make the verse 
approach as nearly as verse may to the freedom and natural- 
ness of ordinary speech. He uses little or no pro.se in his plays, 
for his blank verse answers the purpose. In comparison with 
the fixed rhythm of the early Elizabethans, one often wonders, 
indeed, if Fletcher is writing in metre at all. The change from 
the old, regularly accented, declamatory lines to his irregular, 

124 



conversational style is almost like the change from blank verse 
to prose. 

As Mr. Macaulay says: ' ' No mouthing is possible, no round- 
ing off of description or sentence; all must be abrupt and almost 
spasmodic; the outcome of the moment, untramelled as far as 
may be by any metre, though metre of some sort there always 
is. It is an absolute breaking away from the rigidity of the 
older style. "^ 

The second marked characteristic of Fletcher's verse is his 
avoidance of run-over and use of end-stopt lines. This prac- 
tice, however, by no means produces anything like the effect 
of the end-stopt lines of Shakspere's early plays. The effect 
is again an approach to the fragmentary utterance of ordinary 
conversation. Thus, rhyme is very rarely used, and periodic 
sentences are generally avoided. There is rarely an attempt at 
elaborate, connected description, and never anything like the 
descriptive set pieces of the early dramatists. Images are merely 
suggested, never elaborately finished; parentheses are admitted 
in abundance; and the whole effect is that of unpremeditated 
and disconnected discourse. To quote Mr. Macaulay again: 
" Impulses seem to work before the eyes of the spectator, the 
speakers correct themselves, explain by parentheses hastily 
thown in, or add after thoughts as they occur to the mind."^ 

This use of parentheses is of enough importance to be marked 
as the third important trait of Fletcher's style. No trick of 
his structure so instantly impresses the reader. To the reader, 
indeed, the abundance of parentheses often makes the sentences 
confused and unintelligible; spoken on the stage, however, with 
the aid of gesture, these parentheses must have contributed 
largely toward procuring the effect of spontaneous speech. 

A few lines, taken almost at random, will illustrate to what 
an extraordinary extent parentheses are used and how they 
serve to imitate naturalness and spontaneity. In Thierry and 
Theodoret^ Brunhalt speaks to Protaldy : 

" Give me leave ! 
Or free thyself — think in what place you are — 
From the foul imputation that is laid 
Upon thy valour— be bold, I'll protect you — 
Or here I vow — deny it or forswear it — 
These honours which thou wear'st unworthily — 
Which, be but impudent enough and keep them — 
Shall be torn from thee with thine eyes." 

After studying a while for an ingenious defence, Protaldy 
replies: 

" Oh, I remember't now. At the stag's fall 
As we to-day were hunting, a poor fellow 

1 Francis Beaumont, p. 45. 
^Francis Beaumont, p. 45. 
^11, 3- 

125 



(And, now I view you better, I may say 

Much of your pitch) this silly wretch I spoke of 

With his petition falling at my feet, 

(Which much against my will he kissed) desired 

That, as a special means for his preferment, 

I would vouchsafe to let him use my sword 

To cut off the stag's head." 

" I, ever courteous (a great weakness in me) 
Granted his humble suit." 

We have here an extravagant use of parentheses; serving, 
in one case, the purpose of quick stage asides, and in the other, 
the hesitating verboseness of the stage liar. These examples 
may indicate the variety of action which the parenthetical 
structure can serve; it is used most frequently, of course, in 
passages of violent passion and consequently, very broken 
and rapid utterance. 

A fourth trait of Fletcher's style, perhaps not so distinctly 
characteristic as the others but still unmistakably manifest, 
is his use of conversational abreviations as ' I '11 ' for 'I will,' 
' he ' s ' for 'he is, ' and ' ' t is ' for ' it is. ' Of the same sort is his 
decided preference for ''em' rather than 'them.' He uses 
such abbreviations in great abundance, and the effect of this 
practice, like that of the other traits of his verse, is clearly 
toward a conversational style. 

Now all these traits become mannerisms and prevail to an 
unwarrantable degree. The end-stopt lines produce a tedious 
monotony, and his redundant syllables a slovenly approach to 
prose. Parentheses are often so numerous that they make the 
sense difficult, and colloquialisms often give a vulgar effect to 
passages otherwise dignified. There are other points, however, 
more important for our purpo.se than his faults. 

In the first place his verse shows a divergence from the 
practice of his predecessors. Totally unlike Marlowe's 
sounding line or the lyrical blank verse of Shakspere's early 
plays, it also differs markedly from the blank verse of plays 
1 60 1 to 1 6 10. Nor is the difference merely that of indi- 
vidual mannerisms, it is a structural difference which is ot 
significance in the history of versification of the Elizabethan 
drama. That history has never been fully investigated, but 
its general outline is clear. The change from the old rigid, 
periodic structure to a freer, looser style was not an instanta- 
neous one but a gradual advance, of which the development of 
Shakspere's versification is the most typical example. The 
advance of his verse in dramatic freedom from Romeo and 
Juliet to Othello and Antony and Cleopatra is an advance which 
can be paralleled by a comparison of the plays of the early 
nineties with those ten years later. In this general structural 
development, however, Fletcher was more than a contributor; 
he was a leader and a revolutionist. From the very first he 

126 



wrote a verse which, in the freedom of its metre, not only far 
surpassed that of the dramatists before 1600 but was unap- 
proached either by his immediate predecessors or followers. 
From the very first, too, he wrote a verse which in its conver- 
sational looseness, not only surpassed the early dramatists but 
also remained an unapproached limit. This metrical freedom 
and conversational looseness are found, it must be remembered, 
not only in comedies of manners but also in heroic dramas. 
Fletcher marks the breaking down of blank verse, if you will; 
but he certainly marks the introduction of a revolutionary 
fashion. In comparison with his immediate predecessors, 
his style was an innovation, especially in heroic tragedy; and, 
it can hardly be doubted that his style exercised a strong 
influence on his contemporaries and successors. 

In the second place, the question may be raised whether the 
adoption of this style was not to some degree deliberate. The 
fact that in his Faithful Shepherdess he wrote a regular ten- 
syllable verse with carefully developed images and with few 
disconnected phrases and parentheses, at least shows that he 
could write in a lyric, descriptive style when he chose. The 
radical nature of his structural innovations also suggests that 
he could not have made them unconsciously. At its best, how- 
ever, his verse shows no sign of artificiality, rather it seems 
more spontaneous than that of his predecessors. Even the 
marked change from the style of the Faithful Shepherdess to 
that of the romances may have resulted from the nature of the 
plays. The Faithful Shepherdess is full of lyrical descriptions 
and is, in fact, throughout distinctly lyrical, while the romances 
are, above all, effective acting plays. Whether or not he defi- 
nitely planned an innovation in Elizabethan blank verse, he 
must have formed his style with especial reference to stage- 
action. 

At all events, whether there was conscious purpose or not, 
the effect of Fletcher's innovations is certain. In the third 
place, then, we may note that all the traits of his style unite 
to produce a verse suited to stage action. The early Eliza- 
bethan blank-verse, with its long periods and carefully elabo- 
rated descriptions, was by turns declamatory or lyrical; it did 
not lend itself readily to action. Fletcher's verse differs in 
every respect from that ; but in comparison with blank verse 
as late as 1600, no such sharp distinction can be drawn. The 
general progress was toward dramatic freedom in style, and 
Fletcher took part in the general progress. Even in com- 
parison with his contemporaries, however, the qualities noticed 
in his verse mark it as dramatic. It is not dramatic in the 
sense that it is especially suited to the speakers and their vary- 
ing emotions, but in structure it is dramatic in that it is suited 
to be spoken and acted on the stage. The style of Othello, 

127 



for example, is often instanced as being magnificentl}^ responsive 
to dramatic requirements; " not only is every word in charac- 
ter, but every word also adds to the beauty of a noble tragic 
poem."^ No one would think of comparing any of Fletcher's 
plays with Othello in these respects. A few facts, however, 
will show how Fletcher may sometimes surpass Othello in adapt- 
ing his verse to mere stage action without regard to the repre- 
sentation of character or tragic emotions. In Othello, there 
are 76 speeches of 10 lines or more,^ comprising i, 144 lines. In 
Bonduca (the nearest in date to Othello of any tragedy by 
Fletcher alone) there are only 48 speeches of ten lines or more, 
comprising 686 lines. In Othello there are 12 speeches of 
twenty lines or more, comprising 301 lines; in Bonduca 6 com- 
prising 148 lines. In Fletcher's tragedy there are fewer long 
declamations and more rapid dialogue. * In this respect his style 
in Bonduca seems more directly designed for utterance on the 
stage than even the most masterly dramatic verse of Shakspere. 
Fletcher wrote a verse which by the freedom of its metre 
and the looseness of its structure was suited both to the varied 
play of passion and the lively exchange of repartee. It was 
a verse neitlier to be declaimed nor recited, but a verse to be 
spoken on the stage. We have seen two examples which show 
how his broken phrases served two specific ends in stage action; 
and almost any page from Fletcher will exemplify the same 
thing. Now, however, we are dealing not with specific effects 
but with the general effect. His style varies, of course, with 
the situations, but all his innovations in structure must have 
aided in adapting his plays for stage action. His very faults 
and mannerisms only emphasize this general tendency. Every 
line helps to give the effect of unpremeditated speech. 

Beaumont. Beaumont's verse differs decidedly from Fletch- 
er's. Although he does not avoid the double ending, he uses 
it far less frequently. He also uses unstopt lines in profusion 
and has a marked liking for a periodic structure and extended 
descriptions. Mr. Macaulay has further endeavored to prove 
that his style shows traces of Shakspere' s influence and that, 
in general, his style is distinguished by its resemblance to the 

1 William Shakspere. B. Wendell, p. 286. 

^Speeches iu prose are counted according to the number of lines in 
the Globe ed. 

3 Fletcher cannot be said always to be sparing of long speeches. In 
Wit Without Money, one of his early comedies, the number of speeches 
both over ten and over 20 lines is much less than in Bonduca. In 
Valentinian, however, there are a great many long speeches, 67 of ten 
lines and 16 of twenty. The number of long speeches varies with the 
character of the plays, and no generalization could be made without 
very extensive examination. On the whole I think it can be said that 
Fletcher in his tragedies and tragi-comedies uses more dialogue com- 
posed of very brieif speeches of a line or two than will be found in any 
other tragedies in his time. 

128 



style of Shakspere's middle period, notably that of I/amlef and 
Twelfth Night. To my mind, this resemblance is mainly due 
to the fact that Beaumont's imagination in intensity and origin- 
ality, more than any of his contemporaries, approaches Shak- 
spere's. In considering versification, we shall keep our attention 
on the structure. 

In respect to Beaumont's structure, its difference from 
Fletcher's, while noticeable, may for the sake of contrast easily 
be overestimated. While he is in no respect the innovator that 
Fletcher is, it must not be thought that his verse has much of 
the early rigidity or that it is wanting in Fletcher's freedom. 
If not a radical revolutionist, he is at least a Girondist. 

There are many distinctively lyrical passages in the romances 
where the verse is naturally lyric in structure rather than 
dramatic; and these passages are usually assigned to Beaumont. 
In the portraiture of the love-lorn maidens, in particular, there 
is a good deal of descriptive poetry which is in the old manner 
rather than in Fletcher's; and this is usually assigned to Beau- 
mont. Moreover, he always keeps more closely to a fixed 
metre than Fletcher, and he has not mannerisms like Fletcher's 
which tend directly to give the effect of natural speech. Never- 
theless, when Beaumont is not writing purely descriptive poetry 
but is writing speeches to be acted, his structure is marked by 
broken phrases, repetitions, and parentheses. 

An examination of the parts oiPhilaster, the Maid's Tragedy, 
and Cupid s Revenge generally assigned to Beaumont, will in- 
dicate, I think, to how great a degree this is true. Since in 
the eflfort to distinguish his verse from Fletcher's, this fact has 
been somewhat overlooked, one or two illustrations may be 
pardoned. The first shall be from one of Aspatia' s long speeches 
which is purely operatic in character. Here, we should hardly 
expect verse suited to action; but note: 

" If you needs must love, 
(Forced by ill fate) take to your maiden bosoms 
Two dead-cold aspicks, and of them make lovers: 
They cannot flatter, nor forswear ; one kiss 
Makes a long peace for all. But man. 
Oh, that beast man ! Come, let's be sad, my girls ! 
That down-cast eye of thine, Olympias, 
Shews a fine sorrow. Mark, Antiphila; 
Just such another was the nymph Ojnone, 
When Paris brought home Helen. Now, a tear; 
And then thou art a piece expressing fully 
The Carthage queen, when, from a cold sea-rock. 
Full with her sorrow, she tied fast her eyes 
To the fair Trojan ships; and, having lost them. 
Just as thine eyes do, down stole a tear. Antiphila, 
What would this wench do, if she were Aspatia? 
Here she would stand, till some more pitying god 
Turn'd her to marble ! 'Tis enough, my wench ! 
Shew me the piece of needlework you wrought." ^ 

1 Maid's Tragedy. II, 2, last of the speech. 
129 



The remainder of Aspatia's speeches in the scene will be 
found to exhibit the same broken structure, the same imitation 
of natural conversation. 

These qualities are still more apparent in passages requiring 
more action; for example, in the quarrel scene between Melan- 
tius and Amintor,^ or in the following passage from Philaster. 

Bellario. [aside] "Oh hear. 

You that have plenty ! from that flowing store 
Drop some on dry ground. — See, the lively red 
Is gone to guide her heart ! I fear she faints — 
Madam? look up! — She breathes not. — Open once more 
Those rosy twins, and send unto my lord 
Your latest farewell ! Oh, she stirs : — How is it. 
Madam? speak comfort." 

Arethusa. " 'T is not gently done. 

To put me in a miserable life, 
And hold me there : I prithee, let me go : 
I shall do best without thee : I am well." 

[Enter Philaster.'] 

Philaster. " I am to blame to be so much in rage : 

I'll tell her coolly, when and where I heard 
This killing trutli. I will be temperate 

In speaking, and as just in hearing. 

Oh, monstrous! Tempt me not, ye gods! good gods. 
Tempt not a frail man ! What's he, that has a heart, 
But he must ease it here ! " ^ 

Or take Philaster's speech to Pharamond,® or, indeed, any pas- 
sage in the play, and we find a style that is notably suited to 
action on the stage. 

Beaumont's very freedom from Fletcher's mannerisms re- 
moves Fletcher's faults without removing the acting quality. 
Without stopping at the end of every line, he writes discon- 
nected and broken sentences which give the effect of spontaneity. 
Without straining his metre out of joint, he writes a verse 
which is like spoken discourse. While far less revolutionary 
than Fletcher's, his style is representative of the general ad- 
vance toward a thoroughly dramatic verse. Indeed, when one 
reads the first three acts of the Maid's Tragedy, omitting 
perhaps the masque and the idyl of Aspatia, one feels like ques- 
tioning if poetry was ever written better adapted to stage 
presentation. 

D. Stage Effects. 

We have seen that the blank verse of both Beaumont and 
Fletcher, like their varied situations and exciting denouements, 
helped to give their romances stage-effectiveness. All the charac- 
teristics of the romances, in fact, serve the same end; whatever 

"^Ibid. Ill, 2. 
"^Philaster. IV, 3. 
^Ibid. I, I. 

130 



their permanent literary value, they certainly must have acted 
capitally. Moreover, in addition to this general stage-effective- 
ness, they were not wanting in stage pageantry but abounded 
in devices which may fairly be called spectacular. 

Almost all of these spectacular devices were borrowed from 
the court masques. These were very popular in the years 
1608-1611,^ and there can be no doubt that Beaumont and 
Fletcher turned to them for stage pageantry. In the Four 
Plays there is a " scaffolding full of spectators ' ' and in the 
Maid's Tragedy, a "gallery full of spectators." In these 
cases there is an obvious attempt to represent the setting of a 
court masque, and there is considerable jesting at the crowds 
which thronged to those entertainments. In the Four Plays, 
the various deities that descend and ascend, the numerous 
processions, and the curious machinery where " the mist ariseth 
and the rocks remove," ^ are all like similar performances in 
the court masques. The Four Plays are, in fact, given the 
form of an entertainment before a king and his bride, and the 
last, the Triumph of Time, has unmistakably the form of a 
masque. Theme, spectacle, and dances all follow the recog- 
nized fashion. Mercury and Time appear; " one-half of a 
cloud is drawn," "singers are discovered," then " the other 
half is drawn and Jupiter seen in his glory." The main 
masque is danced by Delight, Pleasure, Lucre, Craft, Vanity, 
etc. , and there is also an anti-masque of a " Troop of Indians, 
singing and dancing wildly about Plutus." Here we have 
not merely an introduction of masque-like pageantry but a 
complete court masque on the public stage in combination with 
a romantic drama. 

In the Maid's Tragedy, there is also a masque, complete and 
elaborated after the usual manner of court masques. In Cupid' s 
Revenge there is the machinery of Cupid's descents and a dance 
by " four young men and maids." ® In Thierry and Theodoret 
there is a dance of revellers.* In many other plays by Beau- 
mont and Fletcher besides the romances, there are also masques 
or bits of masque-like pageantry — distinct masque elements 
occurring in eighteen of their plays. ^ 

1 Seven of these elaborate and costly entertainments were given at 
Whitehall in these years. See Soergel, pp. 72, 73. 

2 Triumph of Honour. Sc. II. n, 2. *III, i. 
^The simplest form of the masque appears in the Coxcomb (I, 2,) 

and Wit at Several Weapojis (V, 2). In the Nice Valour there is a 
dance of masquers led by a lady disguised as Cupid (II, i) ; and also 
an anti-masque of fools, the lady leading again (V, i). Anti-masques 
also occur in the Little French Lawyer (IV, 5), " Gentlemen, habited 
like RufiSans; " in the Queen of Corinth (II, i), "six disguised, sing- 
ing and dancing to a horrid music ; " in the Fair Maid of the Inn (III, 
I), "by Tailor, Dancer, Muletteer, Schoolmaster, etc.," and again 
(IV, 2,) by "four boys shaped like Frogs ; " and in the Mad Lover 
(IV, i), " the Fool and Servants, disguised in a masque of Beasts and 

131 



Now, the masque in its simple form — a dance by a group of 
masked revellers, with or without an introductory speech — ■ 
was common enough in plays before the time of Beaumont and 
Fletcher, and the influence of the masque on the drama in a 
general way has been emphasized by Mr. Fleay and treated at 
length by Dr. Soergel. The nature of this influence in the 
reign of James I, however, has not been fully examined. 
Then, as the court masque grew more elaborate, its machinery, 
costumes, mythological devices, anti-masques, and, indeed, its 
general construction, were borrowed or imitated so freely by the 
dramatists that its influence on the drama was distinctly im- 
portant. Beaumont and Fletcher were undoubtedly promoting 
what Ben Jonsou, who did not mix his masques and plays, called 
the " concupiscence of dances and antics," ^ which in 1612 he 
declared began to reign on the stage. 

There is rea.son to believe that Beaumont and Fletcher were 
leaders in this fashion of introducing elements from the court 
masques on the public stage. Beaumont wrote the very suc- 
cessful court masque of the Inner Temple and Grays Inn; and 
Jonson told Drummond that " next himself only Fletcher' and 
Chapman could make a mask." Moreover, I know of no 
other dramatist except Shirley who drew so much from the 
court ma.sques as did they. Of the dramatists writing 1 608-1 1, 
Shakspere is the only one who is in this respect comparable 
with them. 

If Beaumont and Fletcher did not set this fashion, they were 
certainly among the first to follow it; and Jonson' s scoffs alone 
are sufficient proof that this innovation was very popular with 
the patrons of the theater. In addition, then, to the other 
distinguishing characteristics of the romances, we must note 
that in a way quite different from any preceding plays and to 
an extent greater than other contemporary plays, they pos- 
sessed a good share of stage pageantrj^ much like that of 
the fashionable court masques. 

Trees." In this last play there is also some masque-like business 
connected with the priestess of Venus ; in the Prophetess there is a 
throne on a cloud drawn by dragons (II, 3), a mist (IV, i), and "a 
Dance of Shepherds and Shepherdesses, one disguised as Pan leading 
the men, another as Ceres, the maids" (V, 3). In the Humourous 
JAeutenant {W , 3), there is a dance of spirits; in the Maid in the 
Mill {11, 2), a dance of goddesses, nymphs, and a shepherd; in the 
Faithful Friends (IV, 3 J, a masque danced by the ladies with the 
gentlemen dressed as furies. There are more elaborate masques with 
especial poetry attached in Woman Pleased (V, 3), when there is also 
a morris dance (IV, i); in a Wife for a Month (II, 6); and in the 
False One (III, 4). This list, while not including all the masque 
pageantry and devices is sufl&cient to indicate their abundance in the 
plays of the Beaumont-Fletcher folio. For masque elements in Henry 
F///and the Tivo Noble Kinstnen, see Chap. VIII. 

^See "Address to the reader," Alchemist ^to, 1612. See also the 
Induction to Bartholomew Fair. 

2 Possibly Drummond's mistake for Beaumont? 
132 



CHAPTER VIII. 

General Characteristics of Shakspere's Romances. 

We shall now consider the most important traits of Shak- 
spere's romances. According to my hypothesis these will be 
found to distinguish the romances clearly from Shakspere's 
earlier plays and will also be found to resemble those traits 
which mark the romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

While the points of difference from Shakspere's early work 
will be emphasized, it must not be forgotten that there are 
many points of likeness. Shakspere repeated motives, situa- 
tions and types of character. The romances owe an immense 
debt to his preceding plays. All this cannot be constantly 
dwelt upon in this investigation, but it must be freely admitted. 
I shall treat, however, of the influence of his early work only 
when that seems to interfere with the hypothesis of contem- 
porary influence. In the main we are concerned with the traits 
which differentiate the romances from his preceding plays. 

A. Plots. 

The plots of the romances differ decidedly from those which 
Shakspere had been using in the preceding eight years. During 
those years he had drawn his plots largely from history and 
especially from classical history, and with one or two excep- 
tions each plot had dealt with the life and death of some heroic 
person who gave his name to the play. In Cymbeline he con- 
nected several very distinct stories with a -historical narrative; 
in the Winter' s Tale he dramatized an old romance by Greene; 
and in the Te^npest, possibly on the basis of an Italian novella, 
he built up a marvellous story apparently of his own invention. 
Although the cases of Cloten and Jachimo might be cited to 
the contrary, he did not use stories of abnormal or gross sexual 
passion such as attracted Beaumont and Fletcher. For the 
basis of each play he did take a story of pure and sentimental 
love. Such sentimental love stories, it will be remembered, 
were given a similar prorninence in the romances of Beaumont 
and Fletcher; and such sentimental love stories, it will also 
be remembered, had received no like prominence in Shakspere's 
work from 1601 to 1608. 

About these love stories he weaves many novel and varied 
incidents. The course of Hero's love, or even of Juliet's, is 
smooth compared with that of Imogen's. The attempted se- 

133 



duction by Jachimo, the results of his over-ingenious villainy, 
the attempted poisoning by the wicked queen, the idyllic ad- 
ventures of Imogen in boy's clothes, her supposed death, her 
resurrection, her repulsion by her lover, their final reconcilia- 
tion — all these are the sort of incidents which Beaumont and 
Fletcher used in their romances. Like Beaumont and Fletcher 
again, are the ingenious plots of the Tetnpest and the Whiter' s 
Tale — the love story of a girl who had never seen a man, and 
the changing of an image to a woman. In brief, the material 
of the plots, never taken from history nor resembling real life, 
is of a sort that we call romantic, of a sort that gives theatrical 
novelty and variety. 

Particularly noticeable is the mixture of tragic incidents 
with idyllic. In this respect Shak.spere returns to his practice 
in early comedies like the Two Gentlemen of Verona and Much 
Ado about Nothiyig ; and in this respect he also agrees with the 
contemporary romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. And this 
last resemblance is much the more marked of the two. There 
is plenty of idyllic material in the Elizabethan drama, and it 
is often contrasted with tragic material in Greene, Chettle, and 
Hey wood, as well as in Beaumont and Fletcher and Shakspere; 
but never before these plays, I think, had Shakspere united 
events so purely idyllic and events so essentially tragic in so 
marked contrast as in the story of Imogen. In the eight years 
preceding the performance of Cymbeline and Philaster we have 
found, in fact, that the conjunction of heroic tragedy and a 
sentimental idyl is practically absent from the work of all the 
other dramatists as well as Shakspere. In the romances of 
Shakspere, however, as in those of Beaumont and Fletcher, 
the tragic and idyllic always appear in heightened contrast. 

Still further we may notice the variety of emotions which 
one of the plots presents. Shakspere was no longer dealing 
with stories exemplifying one central emotion, he now took 
plots dealing with every variety of emotion. The emotional 
unity which characterizes the tragedies and the best of the 
comedies is no longer present. The emotions described range 
from the wild jealousy of Leontes to the pretty sentimental 
love-making of Florizel. There is an evident choice of intense, 
exaggerated emotions; there is no sign of unity. 

Thus in variety of emotions as well as of incidents, in the 
nature of the central theme, and in the marked contrast of 
tragic and idyllic scenes, these plots differ from those of Shak- 
spere' s preceding plays. In all these particulars they also differ 
from all plays after 1600 and before Philaster, but they resemble 
the material of the plots of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

Not less striking than this change from his earlier practice 
in the choice of material, is Shakspere's change in the con- 
struction of plots. Kxcept in the historical parts of Cymbeline 

134 



lie abandons the chronicle-history method which he had used 
up to Coriolanus and adopts the method of romance — the con- 
necting of a series of effective situations so that they will lead 
up to a telling denouement. There is nothing epical about 
these plays, and except in Cymbeline there are no camps, battles, 
parleyings, heralds, trials by combat, and other paraphernalia of 
the historical tragedies. The heroic romances owe no allegiance 
to history, they aim solely at theatrical effectiveness. A cur- 
sory examination of any one of them, of Cymbeline in particular, 
will show that in every act there is a medley of stage situations 
affording continual variety and excitement. Such an examina- 
tion will also show that in comparison with earlier plays there 
are almost no merely narrative scenes, and almost no scenes 
which are merely operatic interludes. We shall have occasion 
to revert to these statements when we come to examine the 
separate plays; for the present, we may pass to the more de- 
finable feature of the construction, the treatment of the de- 
nouement. 

Cymbelhie may be taken to show the transition from the meth- 
od of the historical tragedies to that of the romances. Shakspere 
was nominally writing a chronicle-history, but in constructing 
the play he was not chiefly concerned, as in Antony and Cleo- 
patra and Coriolanus, in giving dramatic form to the histori- 
cal narrative. He was chiefly concerned in supplementing 
the narrative with a large number of good stage situations. 
The historical part, in fact, has so little connection with the 
stories of Imogen, Posthumus and Jachimo, Belarius and his 
sons, that there is some reason for Mr. Fleay's conjecture^ that 
it was written earlier than the rest of the play. At all events 
the method of construction is clearly that of linking together 
a series of situations, involving intense and varied action, and 
preparing for elaborate denouement. 

No earlier play of Shakspere's is so overladen with situations, 
or places so much emphasis on the denouement. As Mr. Wen- 
dell has stated: "the last scene of Cymbelhie is among the 
most notable bits of dramatic structure anywhere. The more 
one studies it, the more one is astonished at the ingenuity with 
which denouement follows denouement. Nowhere else in Shak- 
spere, certainly, is there anything like so elaborate an untying 
of knots which seem purposely made intricate to prepare for 
the final situation. Situation, however, is an inadequate word. 
Into 485 lines Shakspere has crowded some two dozen situa- 
tions any one of which would probably have been strong enough 
to carry a whole act." ^ 

This last statement proves, on Mr. Wendell's analysis, to be 

^Lifeo/Sh. p. 246. 

2 William Shakspere. p. 358. 



135 



literally true. Such a denouement is evidently not the natural 
outcome of a tragedy or a comedy; it is the elaborate climax, 
in preparation for which the preceding situations have been 
made involved and perplexing. It is the denouement of the 
drama of situations so arranged as constantly to excite and 
vary the attention of the spectators up to the moment of the 
final unravelling. As, a matter of fact, the denouement of 
Cynibcliyic is so ingeniously intricate that it is ineffective on the 
stage and thereby defeats the purpose for which the ingenuity 
was apparently expended. One feels inclined, indeed, to assert 
with some positiveness that the artistic skill required in man- 
aging so elaborate a scene was not exerted without definite 
purpose. The new technical achievement bespeaks delibera- 
tion. Again one feels inclined to conjecture that this artistic 
efibrt may have been exerted for the purpose of rivalling simi- 
larly heightened denouements in Beaumont and Fletcher. 

Without insisting too much on deliberate rivalry, we may 
surely say that, just as in the Beaumont-Fletcher romances, 
the elaborate denouement is the most marked characteristic of 
the construction of Cymbcliyic. In the same way in the Win- 
ter' s Talc, and the Tempest, denouements are prepared for, 
postponed, and heightened. In each, to quote Mr. Wendell 
again, "there is a new and bold technical experiment" and 
" the experiment consists chiefly of a deliberately skillful hand- 
ling of the denouement."^ Entirely unprecedented in the 
preceding plays of Shakspere, such heightened construction 
of the denouement is practically unprecedented in all earlier 
Elizabethan plays; it has its only parallel in Beaumont and 
Fletcher. 

Finally, these plays all end happily. Essentially tragic as 
are the incidents of Cymbclinc, the first three acts of the Win- 
ter' s Tale, and the Italian story at the basis of the Tempest, no 
one of these stories is carried out to its tragic conclusion. In 
Cymbeline, the happy ending is secured by a violation of the 
most liberal notions of poetic justice; in the Winter's Tale the 
happy ending is deliberately substituted for the tragic one of 
Greene's novel; and in the Tempest the happy ending is ex- 
panded into an entire plaj'. In consequence there have been 
many speculations in regard to Shakspere's forgiving charity, 
his reconciliatory temper, and his attainment of a serene, calmly 
philosophical maturity. These speculations are interesting so 
far as they express to us the emotional components of the 
artistic moods in which these plays were composed. The feel- 
ings which arise in any artist during creative work must, how- 
ever, be distinguished from the practical objective circumstances 
which for most artists, as for Shakspere, play an important part 

1 William Shakspere. p. 377. 

136 



in determining the subject and form of production. Shak- 
spere's moods may have had little resemblance to the emotional 
experiences of Beaumont and Fletcher, but so far as stage 
representation goes, his romances were tragi-comedies, just as 
Philaster and A King and No King were tragi-comedies. 

We have seen that those plays marked a development on 
earlier tragi-comedies. In the same way all the traits which 
we have noticed in Shakspere's romances differentiate them 
from any earlier tragi-comedies; and in particular, the height- 
ened contrast of tragic and idyllic circumstances and the treat- 
ment of denouement show that Shakspere was now using 
tragi-comedy with a fuller realization than before of its theat- 
rical possibilities. In comparison with earlier plays like Much 
Ado and Measure for Measure, the romances appeal to more 
varied and more contrasted emotions and present happy end- 
ings which are more ingenious, elaborate, and surprising. 
Without the archaic abundance of murders, the virtuous people 
are involved in all sorts of difficulties and entanglements and 
are brought out in the end triumphantly happy. The emotions 
of the spectators are intensely stimulated, and at the same time 
their sympathies are gratified. Shakspere may possibly have 
written these plays to inculcate forgiveness or serenity of dis- 
position; he certainly did write them to be acted on the stage 
of the Globe theater. The happy culmination of tragic cir- 
cumstances seems likely, then, to have had its origin in a de- 
sire to gratify the public. At this time, too, it was a new 
structural experiment for Shakspere and an innovation on the 
practice of his contemporaries, unless it was an adoption of a 
fashion already successfully set by Philaster. 

B. Characterization. 

In characterization, no less than in plots, the romances show 
a marked difference from Shakspere's other plays. The charac- 
ters^ show, above all, a surprising loss of individuality. They 
are less consistent, less subtly drawn, less plausibly human; 
they are more the creatures of stage situations. Their salient 
characteristics are exaggerated and emphasized by descriptions 
placed in the mouths of other persons; and thus they often 
become such heightened types of perfect virtue or utter deprav- 
ity as we found in Beaumont and Fletcher. 

These wholesale assertions will not be readily accepted by 
those for whom Shakspere's wonderful phrasing has made vital 
the romantic atmosphere and the people who breathe it. But 
these assertions do not detract one whit from one's admiration 

1 In discussing characters, I shall rarely refer to the comic charac- 
ters. They seem to me to resemble closely those in the earlier plays 
and to have little likeness to Beaumont and Fletcher's. For our pur- 
pose, then, they may be disregarded. 

137 



and delight in Imogen and Perdita; the}' merely point to a new 
method in producing that delight. That this change in method 
is a real one, may be seen by examining the methods used in 
the characterization of the romances and comparing them with 
the methods used in the earlier plays. It is well, however, 
to remind ourselves again that Shakspere must have created 
these people with their stage presentation in view. Their 
poetical qualities have immortalized them; but in studying the 
methods of their creation, we mu.st keep in mind their stage 
qualities. It is unsafe to suppose that an Elizabethan audience 
appreciated poetry in a play more keenly than audiences do 
to-day; and in studying the stage qualities of the characters, 
it is advisable to put the poetry in the background. Keeping, 
then, to the point of view of spectators at an Elizabethan 
theater, we shall be better able to see what effects Shakspere 
sought to produce and in what ways his characters resembled 
those of his fellow playwrights. 

Coming now to specific characters we may note the lack of 
individualization and the subservience to situation in Leontes. 
It is easy, of course, to find intuitive psychology almost any- 
where in Shakspere 's phrasing; but one must be something of 
a casuist, I think, to discover a very real human being in Leontes. 
His vileness and rage and his subsequent tenderness and re- 
pentance do not impress one as the traits of an individual. 
His feelings are all intensified to suit the situations. He is, 
on the stage, merely a representative of the common Eliza- 
bethan type of the suspicious husband in the presence of 
imaginary cuckoldom. He is a piece of a play, a convention. 
He is true to life only as a conventional type is true to life. 
We have only to recall how Othello wooed and loved and mur- 
dered and died, and how every act and every phrase seemed a 
part of a living man in the face of some of the most intense 
problems of life — and we shall see how greatly the method of 
characterization has changed in the Winter' s Tale. 

In the same way as Leontes, Hermione is also a creature of 
situations. The archness and wit of her repartee in the first 
act, her noble declamation in the trial scene, and the unfor- 
giving chastity of her sixteen years wait, do not convince one 
that they belong to the same woman. They belong to the plot. 

The bad characters display the same lack of consistency and 
an extraordinary intensification of their evil traits for the sake 
of situation. Thus, lachimo is neither the mere figure-head 
that Don John is in Much Ado, nor the astonishingly human 
monstrosity that lago is; he is a stage villain who has a telling 
acting part in two or three situations and very little else in this 
world. This exaggeration of salient traits is equally apparent 
in the Queen in Cynibeline and in Sebastian and Antonio in the 
Tempest. 

138 



This same method of exaggeration is also apparent in the 
heroines as well as the other methods of a romantic drama. 
To substantiate this statement, we may begin wnth one who, 
to many people, seems the most delightful of Shakspere's 
heroines — Imogen. 

" Of all his women," says Mrs. Jameson, " considered as 
individuals rather than as heroines, Imogen is the most perfect." 
" Imogen, the most lovely and perfect of Shakspere's female 
characters," is the comment of Nathan Drake. "Of all his 
heroines," says Charles Cowden Clarke, " no one conveys so 
fully the ideal of womanly perfection as Imogen." " In the 
character of Imogen," says Schlegel, " no one feature of female 
excellence is omitted." 

These quotations indicate well enough the impression Imogen 
gives — she is perfect. Like most perfect people, she is not 
real, she is idealized, and that is possibly what these critics 
mean by their perfects. In comparison with the women in the 
early sentimental comedies, Rosalind, Beatrice, Portia, and 
Viola, she lacks the details of characterization, the mannerisms 
which remind us of real persons and suggest the possibility 
of portraiture. In comparison with these heroines, an analysis 
of Imogen's character fails to supply really individual traits; 
one is thrown back on a general statement of her perfectibility. 
She is extremely idealized, or in other words, the exigencies 
of the romantic drama required a heroine who should be very, 
very good; and Shakspere, by the delicacy and purity of his 
fancy, by the exquisite fitness of his verse, succeeded in doing 
just what Beaumont and Fletcher were forever trying to do 
with their Bellarios and Aspatias. 

That the methods of characterization are the same, may be 
seen when one examines Cymbeline and notes just what Imogen 
says and does. She is good and chaste and spirited; she resists 
an attempt at seduction; she wears boys' clothes; she leaves 
the court in search of her lover; she remains true to him after 
he has deserted her and sought to kill her; she dies and is 
brought back to life again; she passes through all sorts of im- 
possible situations to final reconciliation and happiness. In all 
this there is little trace of an individual character; all this can 
be duplicated in the stories of Bellario and Arethusa. 

Take, again, what she says. Take for example, her speeches 
in the dialogue with lachimo:^ read the lines by themselves — 
"What makes your admiration?" — "What is the matter, 
trow?" — "What, dear sir, thus raps you, are you well?" — 
" Continues well my lord? His health beseech you?" — and 
so on. Manifestly, there is no individuality there. What she 
says is suited admirably to the situation, but Bellario, Are- 

, , lAct I, 6, 38-210. 

139 



thusa, or auy one of half a dozen of the romantic heroine type 
might say it just as well. Take again the rest of her dialogue 
with lachimo, or with Pisanio on the way to Milford Haven; ^ 
or take her soliloquy on cruel fate;^ or the one bemoaning her 
weakness and fatigue;^ or her speeches in the final act; con- 
sider how these speeches spoken by a boy actor would have 
appealed to an Elizabethan audience, and you will see how 
complete the similarity is between these speeches and similar 
matter in the Elizabethan drama. They are part and parcel of 
the ordinary situations of the romantic drama. 

Moreover, even the inten.se sentimentalization does not pro- 
duce consistency. The girl who makes some very spirited re- 
plies to her father when he interrupts her parting with her 
lover,* the girl who declaims so oratorically to Pisanio when 
he delivers her lover's letter,* the girl who stains her face in 
the blood of her .suppo.sed lover,® and the girl who recovers 
immediately to follow Lucio as a page," are hardly recognizable 
as the same individual. Still further, it must be noticed that 
the character is presented largely by means of comments and 
descriptions on the part of others. The tributes of lachimo, 
Posthumus, Pisanio, Guiderius, Arveragus, do more to create 
our ideas of Imogen's beauty of character than anything she 
does or says. 

Perdita and Miranda have even less marks of individuality 
than Imogen. Mrs. Jameson says, to be sure, that "Juliet 
herself is not more firmly and distinctly drawn than Perdita. 
The picture is perfectly finished at every point." But when 
one reads Juliet's balcony speech, full of spontaneous and subtle 
revelation of character, and then reads Perdita' s speech to 
Florizel,* one hardly knows what Mrs. Jameson means. Per- 
dita never says anything which any heroine might not say ex- 
cept this mixture of beautiful poetry and poor gardening. 

A further reading of Mrs. Jameson and other critics shows 
that they gain their notions of the beauty and grace of the 
character from what others of the dramatis personae .say about 
her, and their notions of her tenderness and delicacy largely from 
the fact that she is so often silent. The fact that she says so little 
has given rise to pages of ecstasy over Shakspere's subtle de- 
lineation. In fine, she is a conventional romantic heroine, 
beautifully de.scribed, but she is not a successful piece of purely 
dramatic characterization. Miranda has still less to say or do 
and is consequently regarded as more ethereallj'^ ideal. On 
the stage, she must have seemed an even less vital represent- 
ative of the sentimental type. 

lAct. Ill, 3, 23-84. '^III, 4, 44-108. 

21,6,1-9. 61V, 2, 330. 

8 III, 6, 1-27. "IV, 2, 367, seq. 

*l, I, 130-150. *IV, 4, 110-135. 

140 



These three heroines, then, who seem to many to possess the 
lasting suggestiveness of noble ideal conceptions of human 
nature, could have appeared on the stage only as ordinary 
heroines. Idealization in poetry becomes on the stage mere 
emphasis and description of the salient qualities of purity and 
winsomeness. On the stage, Shakspere's heroines have few 
traits to distinguish them from almost any of Beaumont and 
Fletcher ' s. The same beardless boy who one day played Bellario 
might the next day, without change of make-up, appear as the 
page Fidele. Nor is the resemblance merely one of stage appear- 
ance. Beaumont and Fletcher and Shakspere alike seem to 
have sought to produce a heroine — the personification of ideal 
womanhood, garnished with beautiful poetry — who should fill 
the requirements of the romantic situations which they built 
up out of sentimental love stories. I^imited by the same re- 
quirements, their methods, too, were similar. In connection 
with these similarities, it becomes important to remember that 
the sentimentalized heroine had almost no part in Shakspere's 
plays during the eight years from Trvelfth Night to Cymbeline. 

Our emphasis on the similarities between the heroines must 
not be misinterpreted to indicate a blindness to their differences. 
They differ in many ways; they differ just as Beaumont's imagi- 
nation or Fletcher's phrasing differs from Shakspere's imagina- 
tion or phrasing. Shakspere's imagination, for example, does 
not delight to linger over the theme of unrequited love to the 
extent that Beaumont's did. Beaumont and Fletcher, again, 
fail to suggest by their phrasing the delicacy of sentiment with 
which Shakspere's heroines are dressed. We must not forget, 
either, that there are many heroines of this general type in the 
Elizabethan drama and that there were some on the stage be- 
fore Shakspere had established himself as a dramatist or Beau- 
mont had been sent to school. 

This type, however, plays little part in the drama for six or 
seven years before the probable date of Philaster and little part 
in Shakspere's plays from Twelfth Night to the romances. Two 
facts are very significant — a sentimentalized heroine plays 
an important role in each of the Beaumont- Fletcher romances 
and a sentimentalized heroine likewise has an important part 
in each of Shakspere's romances. While Shakspere trans- 
formed her into a beautiful idealized being, characteristically 
his own; on analysis as a stage personage, she still presents 
the characteristics of Beaumont and Fletcher's ideal maidens. 
To put the case boldly, even Imogen is no other than Bellario 
plus Shakspere's poetry. 

There are other characters, too, in Shakspere's romances 
who show resemblances to the Beaumont- Fletcher stock types. 
Thus the wicked queen in Cymbeline is very like the wicked 
queens of Beaumont and Fletcher. The faithful counsellors, 

141 



Gonzalo, Camillo, and the faithful servant Pisanio supply the 
place on the stage of Beaumont and Fletcher's faithful friends. 
The king in Cyvibelijie has a close likeness to the king in 
Philastcr; and the king in the Winter's Tale, something of the 
royal fury of Arbaces in A King and A^o King. 

Exact resemblances are not at all to be expected; but a 
summary of the characters of the romances shows that Shak- 
spere, like Beaumont and Fletcher, used only a few fairly con- 
ventionalized types. The heroines are all of one piece, the 
villains are of one piece; the heroes can hardly be distinguished 
from each other except that Posthumus has much more to do; 
the aged counsellors appear in two plays: and these types in- 
clude about all the principal characters. To see how great a 
change these types indicate in Shakspere's method of charac- 
terization, we have only to remember that within two years 
before the time when he probably wrote Cymbeline, he w^as 
probably writing Ayitony and Cleopatra. 

On the whole, then, the characterization of the romances 
shows little of the immense creative power that distinguishes 
Shakspere's work from Romeo and Juliet through Antony and 
Cleopatra. The characters, on the contrary, are in the main 
only such conventional types as the romantic situations demand. 
That this change was conscious cannot, of course, be asserted; 
but that it had its cause in the immediate demand of the Lon- 
don stage, seems in every way probable. It is, at least, in 
harmony with the supposition that in his effort to produce 
plays wnth varied and intense situations, and with tragic and 
idyllic contrasts, culminating in elaborate denouements, Shak- 
spere followed so closely the style of play which Beaumont and 
Fletcher had made popular that, consciously or unconsciously, 
he adc)pted their methods of characterization and even made 
some use of their conventionalized types. 

C Style. 

The romances differ from the rest of Shakspere's plays not 
only in plots and characters but also in versification. Up to 
Cymbeline. the development of Shakspere's versification is 
regular enough; the increase in unstopt lines and feminine 
endings and the decrease of rhyme, mark a gradual develop- 
ment in freedom of versification with a constant increase in 
mastery. In comparison, however, with the splendid phrasing 
of Afitony and Cleopatra, Cymbeline shows a puzzling deca- 
dence; nor can its characteristic traits readily' be explained 
merely as a stage in the development discoverable in Shakspere 
and in Elizabethan dramatic versification in general. An ex- 
amination of these structural traits, which are also manifest in 
the IVifiter's Tale and the Tempest, is necessary in order to 
distinguish the style from that of the preceding plays and is 

142 



of interest in connection with the contemporary versification 
of Fletcher. 

In the first place, we find an increase in the proportion of 
double endings. In addition there seems to be a constant de- 
liberate effort to conceal the metre. The rhythm is often 
hardly discernible until we piece together the broken lines, 
count the syllables, and place the accents. The verse con- 
stantly borders on prose. 

In the second place, the end-stopt line is often carefully 
avoided; there being, in point of fact, two unstopt for every 
five end-stopt lines. Here, Shakspere's practice differs de- 
cidedly from Fletcher's, but in one particular the effect is much 
the same. Shakspere's verse, like Fletcher's, clearly tends to 
imitate the natural, unpremeditated manner of ordinary speech; 
and in attaining this effect, the broken phrases, avoiding the 
strict metrical limitations of hnes and syllables, largely con- 
tribute. The unstopt lines, like Fletcher's stopt lines, imitate 
the discontinuity of actual speech. Fletcher wrote in discon- 
nected lines; Shakspere in disconnected phrases. 

Other than this, their technical methods are similar. Shak- 
spere's use of unstopt lines involves a use of weak and light 
endings, but his structure in general is like Fletcher's. It is 
never periodic. On the contrary, the speakers repeat them- 
selves, break off abruptly, correct themselves, and add apparent 
after-thoughts. The speeches of the actors seem suggested 
by the action of the moment and are almost necessarily accom- 
panied by action. One image is never fully developed, nor 
are set descriptions indulged in as in the early plays; but image 
is piled upon image as if one suggested another. As Mr. 
Macaulay says: ' ' Point is added to point, each one as it comes 
being apparently suggested by that which has preceded it. 
. . . . the whole conveying the impression of thoughts 
uttered as they passed through the mind rather than of any 
elaborate composition." 

Important in producing this loose structure and of itself one 
of the most distinguishing traits of Shakspere's late verse, is 
his use of parentheses. Sometimes the parenthetical structure 
is used to such a degree that the meaning is almost unintelli- 
gible; it usually requires the assistance of gesture and skillful 
elocution. Even bits of operatic convention take on this form, 
as Pisanio's comment on Imogen's change of clothing.^ Pa- 
rentheses serve also to break the declamatory monotony of the 
early style, as in Hermione's great speech.^ They are most 
often used, however, in cases where violent passions demand 
confused, ejaculatory speech. Take, for example, Imogen's 

'^Cvnbeline, III, 4, 156-168. 
2 Winter's Tale, III, 2, 92-117. 

143 



speech on receiv'ing Posthumus' letter/ or her dialogue with 
Pisanio/ or Leontes' wild outbreak of jealousy/ or his speech 
to Camillo/ or his speech to Antigonous.* All these examples 
indicate how well the parenthetical structure is adapted to stage 
action. 

These examples, which may be multiplied almost at random, 
also illustrate the other traits of style which have been men- 
tioned and which are, indeed, generally recognized as charac- 
teristic of Shakspere's late style. Another trait which seems 
to me especially characteristic of the romances is the frequent 
use of colloquialisms, as ' he's' for ' he is,' ' 'tis' for 'it is,' 'I'll' 
for 'I will,' and so on.^ While not of much importance of 
itself, this trait of phrasing resembles the more important traits 
of structure in the evident imitation of natural speech. 

All these traits of the late style seem aimed at producing 
an effect of natural and unpremeditated speech which should 
lend itself readily to action; yet, as a matter of fact, one of 
the most noticeable results of these changes is the obscurity of 
the verse. This is due partly to the extreme to which the 
broken sentence structure is carried, and partly to the over- 
burdening of the verse with thought, and partly to the inten- 
sity and rapidity of Shakspere's imagination. In avoiding set 
descriptions he heaps metaphor upon metaphor, and as a result 
gains a brevity which is forcible but by no means clear. 

In this intensity and rapidity of imagination lies a funda- 
mental difference between his verse and Fletcher's. As Charles 
Lamb" says, " (Fletcher) lays line upon line, making up one 
after the other, adding image to image so deliberately that we 
may see where they join. Shakspere mingles everything; he 
runs line into line, embarrasses sentences and metaphors; before 
one idea has burst its shell, another is hatched and clamorous 
for disclosure." Fletcher was not troubled with complexity 
of thought or exuberance of imagination to such an extent 
that he had difficulty in fitting them for stage utterance; in 

1 Cymb., Ill, 2, 53-61. 

"^Cymb., Ill, 4, 72-85, 104-109. 

^W. r., I, 2, 185, seq. 

*W. T. I, 2, 267, seq. 

^W. T. II, 3, 154-162. 

^ An examination .of the first acts of Merchant of Venice, Antony 
and Cleopatra, and the Winter's Tale shows the number of abbrevia- 
tions to be 16, 49, and 89, respectively. In the case of 's for is, I '11 for 
I will, 'tis for it is, '11 for will, the ratios of the abbreviated forms 
to the total number of abbreviated and unabbreviated were .28, 
.61, and .74, respectively. This furnishes some evidence that Shak- 
spere's increase in the use of colloquialisms was marked in his latest 
period. A similar examination of several acts in Fletcher's plays in- 
dicates that his preference for similar abbreviations was equally 
marked. 

''Lamb's Specimens of Dramatists. Second Edition, p. 419. 

144 



his late period, at any rate, Shakspere undoubtedly was. To 
this is due in part the difference in the general impression re- 
ceived from their styles. In total effect they are very unlike. 

In comparing versifications, however, habits of thought or 
imagination may well be left out of consideration; we must 
confine ourselves to resemblance in structure. In his greater 
use of run-over lines and in his more moderate use of double 
endings, as well as in traits of his imagery and phrasing, Shak- 
spere 's verse is readily distinguished from Fletcher's; but in 
other technical qualities, its resemblance is worth noting. 
Shakspere uses feminine endings more frequently than before, 
he is at pains to conceal the metre, he writes in disconnected 
phrases, he avoids carefully elaborated images, he uses paren- 
theses to an extraordinary degree, he uses colloquialisms with 
frequency. In all these respects he seems, like Fletcher, to 
have been imitating the unpremeditated, disjointed utterance 
which is best suited to stage action. 

It is in these structural changes, also, that the verse is dis- 
tinguished from that of the earlier plays. How complete its 
departure is from the old lyric style can at once be seen by 
comparing it with the first act of so late a play as Lear. How 
marked is the structural transformation can be seen by referring 
to the still later play oi Antony and Cleopatra. A comparison 
of this last play with Cymbeline also reveals a decided loss of 
mastery, an apparently conscious and not quite successful 
struggle to overcome the difficulties of the new structure. 
More than in the case of any of the other traits of the romances, 
one is tempted to suggest that the versification, particularly in 
Cymbeline, indicates effort and deliberation. 

The cause of this effort may be sought in various directions. 
The structural peculiarities may have been the outcome, con- 
scious or unconscious, of the new style of play and of the ac- 
companying mood. The general progress of Shakspere's style 
toward freedom in metre and structure must be given some 
share in the production of the style of the late plays. Our 
examination of the traits of the style does, however, emphasize 
the important influence of another factor. It does not indicate 
that there was any direct imitation of Fletcher, even in the 
structural peculiarities. The resemblances in structure between 
the two styles were probably not related as cause and effect, 
but were the results of similar dramatic conditions and similar 
plays. Shakspere does seem to have used means similar to 
those used by Fletcher, because he was trying as Fletcher 
w^as to suit his verse to stage action. This effort to imitate 
unpremeditated, disconnected, natural speech seems, in fact, 
sufficient to account for all the marked variations in structure 
which Cymbeline presents in comparison with earlier plays. 



145 



D. Stage Effects. 

In considering the plots, characters, and style of the romances 
we have reached the conclusion that all the traits which dis- 
tinguish them from Shakspere's other plaj's show a common 
tendency to secure greater stage-effectiveness. In face of the 
fact that the romances have not since the Restoration proved 
very effective acting plays, this conclusion may still seem ques- 
tionable. In the first place, it must be remembered, both 
Shakspere's and Beaumont and Fletcher's romances lack the 
unity of construction and still more the verisimilitude demanded 
by modern audiences. Further, it may be repeated, Shakspere's 
romances do not show anything like Beaumont and Fletcher's 
cleverness in constructing startling situations and plots. As 
Elizabethan plays, however, as series of entertaining situations 
and elaborate climaxes, they must have ministered to the same 
taste as the Beaumont- Fletcher romances. 

Apart from regular dramatic methods, there are still further 
evidences of efforts for stage success which appeal even less to 
modern taste. The extraordinary variety of situations in Cyni- 
beli7ie^ was perhaps sufficient, but in the Whiter' s Tale there 
are additional devices. There is the bear which chases Antig- 
onous off the stage during the storm," there is the antick dance 
by the twelve satyrs/ the graceful dance of shepherds and 
shepherdesses,^ the change of clothes, which may easily have 
afforded a good piece of comic business,^ and, finally, there is 
the transformation of the statue to life.® No dramatist intro- 
duced any of these into his play without a deliberate effort for 
stage effect. The day of warring armies and revengeful ghosts 
was passing, but the audiences' craving for novelty was un- 
ceasing, and it is amply cared for both here and in the Tempest. 

The Tempest, to us a beautiful poem full of beneficent ideal- 
ism, on the Elizabethan stage must have seemed largely an 
effort to satisfy this craving. Caliban, that immensely taking 
Elizabethan stage-beast, who has proved so prophetically philo- 
sophical, must have been the hit of the play. Then there was 
the old device borrowed from the Midsummer NighV s Dream 
of the invisible Ariel bewildering the courtiers,^ and the still 
older business of the vanishing banquet, " accomplished with 

^The curious spectacle of Jupiter and the ghosts in Posthumus* 
dream (V, 4) must not be overlooked. 

'^III, 3. See note, p. 34, ante. 

2 IV, 4, 352. See p. 32. Compare with the dance of Indians in the 
Four Plays. 

nv, 4- 165. 

^IV, 4, 640-670. 

^ V, 3. For a transformation of a statue to life, see Lyly's Gallathea. 
For use of statues in court masques, see the Masque of the Inner 
Temple, etc. (1613), and the Golden Age Restored (1616). 

'111,3- 

146 



a quaint device."^ Then there were the drunken scenes, 
such as Shakspere had used before, but now made especially 
diverting when the climax was reached and the dogs chased 
the drenched and filthy boors about the stage while Prospero 
and Ariel cried on quarry ! Prospero himself, with his magi- 
cian's robes and wand, must have made an imposing spec- 
tacular figure. 

Prospero and Ariel are, indeed, proper figures for a court 
masque, and the "strange Shapes," like the satyrs in the 
WtJiter's Tale, are nothing more nor less than an anti-masque. 
Note, for proof the stage directions : 

III, 3. " Enter several strange Shapes, bringing in a banquet ; they 
dance about it with gentle actions of salutation ; and, inviting the 
king, etc., to eat, they depart." 

Again, a little later, after Ariel in the form of a harpy has 
vanished in thunder: 

III, 3, 82. — " then, to soft music, enter the Shapes again, and dance 
with mocks and mows, and carrying out the table." 

Still again — 

IV, I. "A noise of hunters heard. Enter divers Spirits, in shape 
of dogs and hounds," etc. 

The anti-masques at the court often appeared in shape of 
animals, as goats {Honour of Wales, 1619) and bears {Augurs, 
1622) and monkeys {Middle Temple arid Lmcoln's Inn, 1613). 

These grotesque spirits, then, in shape of dogs, and, earlier, 
with their dancing and mocks and mows, must, just as certainly 
as the masque proper in the fourth act, have been suggested 
by the court masques. The antic dances and performance of 
the Shapes, together with the devices of Prospero and Ariel, 
make, in fact, an unmistakable masque-setting for the masque 
proper with its goddesses and graceful dance of nymphs and 
reapers.^ 

Thus in the Tempest Shakspere was combining the construc- 
tion, pageantry, and devices of the court masque, just as Beau- 
mont and Fletcher did in the Four Plays. It is interesting to 
note, by the way, that Shakspere combined his masque-material 
with his play much more skillfully than any of his contempo- 
raries. Beaumont and Fletcher's Four Plays is a rare instance 
of a similar attempt to unite the diverse elements. Usually, 
the anti-masque or the spectacle or the masque proper is 
dragged into the play. In the Tempest, however, the strange 
shapes and the goddes.ses suit the atmosphere of the enchanted 

^III, 3- ... 

2 IV, I. 138. "Enter certain Reapers, properly habited; they join 
with the Nymphs in a graceful dance ; towards the end whereof Pros- 
pero starts suddenly and speaks; after which, to a strange, hollow, 
and confused noise, they heavily vanish." 

147 



island and play a natural part in the magic of Ariel and 
Prospero. 

Very distinctly, then, in the Tempest, and at least in the dance 
of shepherds and anti-masque of satyrs in the Winter'' s Tale, 
Shakspere was adding to the attractiveness of his plays by 
the introduction of a g«od deal of pageantry after the style 
of the court masques. This fashion of imitating the court 
masques was certainh^ a new one at the time, and Beaumont 
and Fletcher were leaders in it. Shakspere also seems to 
have been regarded as a leader and prominent offender by 
Ben Jonson, for in protesting against the "jigs and dances" 
he especially mentions "those that beget tales, tempests and 
such like drolleries. ' ' ^ Our chronology of the plays indicates 
that Beaumont and Fletcher preceded Shakspere in the imita- 
tion of the court ma.sque, but the question of precedence cannot 
be certainly settled nor is it very important. The development 
of the court masque in the reign of James I must inevitably 
have been followed by an adoption of some of its important 
and novel features on the public stage. Shakspere was a leader 
in the same fashion in which Beaumont and Fletcher were 
leaders and was playing to the same taste to which they 
played. 

Before leaving the subject of the stage pageantry of Shak- 
spere' s plays, we must note that it is especially abundant in 
the two plays in which he probably collaborated with Fletcher. 
Henry VIII, according to Sir Henry Wotton, " was set forth 
with many extraordinary circumstances of pomp and majesty, ' ' ^ 
and the stage directions amply testify to the fact. The trial 
scene, the coronation, and the christening make the play a 
succession of pageants, and in addition there are noticeable 
masque elements. In Act V, scene 4, there is the porter's 
scene with the satire on the crowds that thronged to masques 
and pageants, like similar scenes in the Four Plays ^ and the 
Maid's Tragedy.* In Act I, scene 4, there is the masque at 
Wolsey's with the king and others disguised as shepherds. 
Again, in the vision which appears to Katharine, there is a 
spectacle and dance decidedly like those of the court masques. ^ 

^Bartholomew Fair. Induction, (acted 1614). 

2 See p. 37, ante. 

^Induction. 

*I, 2. 

^ IV, 2, 80. "Sad and solemn music." Then after line 82: "The 
vision. Enter, solemnly tripping one after another, six personages, 
clad in white robes, wearing on their heads garlands of bays, and 
golden vizards on their faces ; branches of bays or palm in their hands. 
They first congee unto her, then dance; and, at certain changes, the 
first two hold a spare garland over her head ; at which the other four 
make reverent curtsies .... and so in their dancing vanish, 
carrying their garland with them. The music continues." 

148 



These last two masques or dances occur in scenes by Fletcher, 
but we can't be quite safe in concluding that he devised them, 
although this is very probable. 

In the Two Noble Kinsmen, apart from the pageantry of the 
"funeral solemnity"^ and of the prayers in the temple,^ we 
have a masque and an anti-masque. The wedding masque* 
is in the approved form and the anti-masque,^ as we have seen, 
is borrowed from the court Masque of the hiner Temple. With 
the addition of some action, this forms a whole scene repre- 
senting a performance by some country folk before Theseus. 

In these two plays we thus have additional evidence of 
Fletcher's use of the court masques in stage plays, and also 
additional evidence that Shakspere was trying to satisfy the 
taste for stage pageantry. 

E. Summary. 

The results of our investigation up to this point may be 
briefly summarized. The three romances by Shakspere show 
many common traits and a marked divergence from his plays 
of the preceding eight years. While in a few particulars they 
resemble the earlier comedies, they stand together and form a 
new style of drama. The relation of each play to the general 
type, its resemblances and variations, have been left to suc- 
ceeding chapters. So far we have dwelt mainly on common 
traits and common divergences from the preceding plays. 

To emphasize this divergence reference may be profitably 
made to Coleridge's discussion of the qualities which distinguish 
Shakspere from all other dramatists. Among the seven char- 
acteristics enumerated are the following four : ' ' expectation in 
preference to surprise; " " independence of the dramatic interest 
in the plot ;" " independence of the dramatic interest in the 
story as the ground of the plot;" "the characters of the 
dramatis personse like those in real life are to be inferred 
by the reader, they are not told to him." ^ These four charac- 
teristics are certainly manifest in most of Shakspere' s plays, 
especially in the tragedies which preceded the romances; in 
the romances, however, no one of them holds with any exact- 
ness. In fact the reverse of each seems generally a noticeable 
trait. 

In our analysis we have found varied and ingenious plots, 
tragic and idyllic scenes furnishing emotional varietj^ and con- 
trast, telling situations, emphasized denouements, characteri- 

^1.5- 
2V, 3. 

81, I. (Shakspere's part.) 
*III, 5, by Fletcher. 

^Characteristics of Shakspere' s Drama. Complete works of Cole- 
ridge. Ed. Professor Shedd. New York, 1854, 7 vols. Vol. 4, p. 61, seq. 

149 



zation sacrificed to convention and situation, a versification 
perceptibl)^ designed for stage effect, and considerable pageantry 
taken from the court masques. In all these, and in more spe- 
cific ways as well, the romances not only dififer from Shak- 
spere's preceding work, they resemble the contemporary 
romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

Moreover, we have found from an examination of all the 
plays acted i6or-i6ii that there are none by other authors 
which offer marked resemblances to those by either Beaumont 
and Fletcher or Shakspere. Not only is there no play by an- 
other author which possesses in any considerable degree the 
characteristics of either set of romances; there are few plays 
which ofier any resemblances. Among the plays from 1601- 
161 1 there are few romantic plots, almost no tragi-comedies, 
little emphasis of sentimental heroines, few idyllic scenes, no 
full-fledged imitations of court masques. There is, in short, 
no indication of a revival of romance, to say nothing of the 
formation of a new type of romantic tragedies and tragi-come- 
dies. 

Shakspere' s romances seem not only unlike his own preceding 
plays but also unlike any contemporary plays except those of 
Beaumont and F'letcher. When we remember that Shakspere's 
change from historical tragedy to romance was very abrupt, 
that it was almost exactly contemporaneous with the success 
of Beaumont and Fletcher's romances, that Shakspere and 
Fletcher wrote two plays together for the King's men, and that 
three of Beaumont and Fletcher's romances were acted by the 
same theatrical company as Shakspere's, then the resemblances 
between the two sets of plays become very significant. So 
strong do the> seem that we must conclude there was consider- 
able indebtedness from one to the other. The co-existence of 
two sets of romances closely resembling each other has been 
established, and a study of contemporary drama indicates that 
the only possible explanation is that of mutual influence. 

The question of which group influenced the other remains 
to be considered. So far we have been discussing resemblances 
without dwelling on questions of which was cause and which 
effect. Some light, however, has been thrown on these ques- 
tions. In some particulars there seems no way of determining 
the cause, and in some no reason to suppose that there was 
any definite relation of cause and effect. Common traits in 
versification, for example, cannot be held to show direct imita- 
tion; at the most they indicate only a common purpose. Re- 
semblances in stage pageantry likewise merely indicate that each 
was securing similar effects by similar means. While in the 
absence of a certain chronology it is impossible to say who was 
the innovator in this respect, we can assert that there may 
have been conscious rivalry and that there must have been 

150 



conscious effort to meet the same stage demand. In other 
traits, Hke the material of the plots, the emphasis placed on a 
surprising- denouement, the sentimental heroines, we find reason 
to expect more definite indebtedness. Questions of indebted- 
ness must, in fact, include methods of construction and charac- 
terization and all the defining characteristics of the romance 
type. 

Before considering this whole question of mutual influence 
we may best turn to an examination of some further resem- 
blances between typical representatives of either class — Cym- 
beline and Philaster. 



151 



CHAPTER IX. 

Cymbeline and Philaster. 

Cymbcline is generally considered the earliest of the romances. 
In Cyvibclhie , then, if anywhere, we may expect to find specific 
traces of the Beaumont-Fletcher romances. A study of Shak- 
spere's plays after his earliest period does not lead us to expect 
to find Shakspere absolutely imitating; but it does show that 
he was constantly influenced by dramatic conditions and fash- 
ions and that he was using and perfecting dramatic types which 
other men had originated. In the first play in which, if our 
hypothesis be true, he adapted the Beaumont-Fletcher type, 
there ought to be some definite resemblances to the original. 
Such resemblances may be found between Cytnbeline and Phil- 
aster. 

The majority of these have already been discussed by Dr. 
B. Leonhardt in an article on the relations of Philaster to 
Hamlet ?i\\di Cyvibeline} He is so impressed with the many 
resemblances between Philaster and Cymbeline that he thinks 
Beaumont and Fletcher used the Cloten-Imogen plot. Further, 
he takes 1608 as the date of Philaster and is therefore moved 
to suggest in a foot-note that Cymbeline was written before 
1608. The idea that Shakspere could have imitated or adapted 
any one's work does not seem to have occurred to him. 

In comparing the two plays, it must be remembered that 
many resemblances have been instanced in the preceding chap- 
ters. All that has been said of the romances of Beaumont 
and Fletcher applies to Philaster, and all that has been said of 
the romances of Shakspere applies with especial force to Cym- 
beline. Here we are to look for more specific resemblances 
and we will begin, as usual, with the plots. The historical 
narrative and the Italian expedition of Posthumus have no 
parallels in Philaster, and most of the Megra affair and the 
rising of the mob in Philaster have no parallels in Cymbeline. 
In the main, however, the plots are strikingly similar. 

^Anglia, Vol. 8, p. 424. (Jber Beziehungen von Beaumont und 
Fletcher'' s Philaster , or Love Lies-a-Bleeding zu Shakespeare's Hamlet 
und Cymbeline. B. Leonhardt, 1885. The resemblances, to Hamlet 
have been frequently noticed and may be due to a conscious imitation 
of that play. The resemblance, however, arises mainly from the use 
of the common motive of "revenge for a father;' and the frequent 
burlesque of Hamlet in Beaumont and Fletcher's plays counts against 
the likelihood of conscious imitation. 

152 



Imogen, heiress to the throne, is destined by her royal 
father to marry his boorish step-son, Cloten ; but she is wedded 
to a noble youth, Leonatus Posthumus.^ Arethusa, only daugh- 
ter of the King of Calabria, is likewise destined by her father 
to marry the boorish Spanish prince, Pharamond, but she is in 
love with Philaster the rightful heir. ^ Leonatus is- favorably 
contrasted by the courtiers with Cloten,* and so Philaster is 
contrasted with Pharamond.* Both I^eonatus^ and Philaster' 
are driven from court by the royal fathers. As he is leaving 
Arethusa's apartments, Philaster has an encounter with Phara- 
mond,' and as L^eonatus is leaving Imogen, he has an encounter 
with Cloten.^ In the absence of Leonatus, lachimo tries to 
seduce Imogen,® and Pharamond makes similar proposals to 
Arethusa. *° Both are repulsed. lachimo slanders Imogen 
to Leonatus," and Arethusa is falsely accused to Philaster by 
Dion.^^ Imogen is brought to despair by Ivconatus' letter 
charging her with unfaithfulness,^* and Arethusa is likewise 
in anguish when similarly upbraided to the face by Philaster." 
Each lover has a passionate soliloquy in which he denounces 
his mistress and all woman-kind. ^^ ^® Imogen leaves the court 
in disguise to seek I^eonatus and, after dismissing Pisanio, loses 
her way; " and Arethusa parts from the hunting party to wander 

"O'er mountains, through brambles, pits, and floods." ^^ 
Both, because falsely slandered, wish to die.^® ^^ Each king 
is very much disturbed at his daughter's absence. ^^ ^^ Cym- 
beline accuses Pisanio of knowing where she is,^* and so Cala- 
bria accuses Dion." Arethusa is wounded by Philaster, ^^ and 
Imogen is struck down by I,eonatus.^^ Finally the disentangle- 
ments of the two plots are made in similar ways. In Philaster, 
Bellario explains that in spite of her page's clothes she is a 
woman, and Megra confesses that she has falsely slandered 
Arethusa.^' In Cymbeline, Imogen explains and lachimo con- 
fesses.^* In Philaster, all are forgiven, even Megra and Phara- 
mond,^® so in Cyinbeli7ie lachimo is pardoned;*" and in each 
play the lovers are happily united under the king's favor. 

1 Cymb., I, I. ^^PhiL, III, 2. 

^ Phil. ,1,1. ^'' Cymb., 111,6. 

^ Cymb., 1,1. ^^Phtl.,IV,3. 

*Pkil., I, I. ^^Cymb., Ill, 4, 75-95 : IV, 2, 15. 

^Cymb., I, I, 120-130. ^Phil., Ill, 2: IV, 3. 

*Pkil., I, I. ^^Cymb., Ill, 5, 28-52. 

''Phil., 1,2. ^Phil.,lV,2. 

^Cymb., 1,2. ^ Cymb., IV, 3,^-^2. 

^Cymb., 1,6. "^ Phil. ,1V , 2. 

^^ Phil., 1,2. ^ Phil., IV, 3- 

" Cymb., II, 4. ^ Cvmb., V, 5, 228. 

^Phil., Ill, I. 27/%//., V, 5- 

13 Cymb., Ill, 4, 20, seq. ^a Cymb., V, 5. 

^*Phil., III. 2. ^Phil., V, 5. 

15 Cymb., II, 5. *° Cymb., V, 5. 

153 



These parallels indicate a close similarity between the two 
plots, yet after all the similarity does not lie so much in the 
stories as in the situations. The basis of the Imogen story is 
probably the ninth novel of the second day in the Decamerone. 
This story, the slor}' of lachimo's trick, forms no part of 
Philaster. To this lachimo-Iraogen story, however, Shak- 
spere added a dozen or so situations which are almost exact 
counterparts of situations in Philaster. 

Although the resemblance is not so close, the idyllic scenes 
in Cy77ibeline have more than a chance likeness to those in 
Philaster. The scenes in the mountains between Belarius and 
his foster sons, which give an opportunity to display Imogen's 
character with so much charm, recall a passage in Philaster. 

" Oh, that I had been nourished in these woods 
With milk of goats and acorns, and not known 
The right of crowns nor the dissembling trains 
Of women's looks; but digged myself a cave, 
Where I, my fire, my cattle, and my bed, 
Might have been shut together in one shed ; 
And then had taken me some mountain girl, 
Beaten with winds, chaste as the hardened rocks 
Whereon she dwelt, that might have strewed my bed 
With leaves and reeds, and with the skins of beasts, 
Our neighbors, and have borne at her big breasts 
My large, coarse issue! This had been a life 
PVee from vexation."^ 

The same ideas receive a much greater amplification in Cytn- 
beline, where Belarius dwells in a cave and upholds the free, 
isolated life in a long discussion with his sons.'^ The passage 
in which Philaster describes his meeting with Bellario : 

" Hunting the buck, 
I found him sitting by a fountain's side," etc' 

gives expression to similar idyllic sentiments. The scenic 
representation of the idyl in Philaster is much less notable 
than in Cymbeline but occupies the whole of the fourth act. 
The four scenes of that act are located in a forest whither come 
a hunting party, a country fellow, woodmen, and the two 
maidens wandering forlorn. Into this forest, as in the moun- 
tains of Belarius, tragic events press thick and fast. 

The idyllic elements in each play have still further similarity 
in the developments of the stories of Imogen-Fidele and 
Euphrasia-Bellario. As a princess at court, Imogen resembles 
Arethusa, but as a page in the country scenes she has a closer 
likeness to Bellario. As Dr. Leonhardt has shown, the resem- 
blance is also much closer than that between Bellario and 
Viola. The resemblance between the two latter consists mainly 

'^Phil., IV, 2. 
^Cymb., Ill, 3. 
8 /%?■/., I, 2. 

154 



in their one common situation, each being the messenger from 
the man she loves to the woman he loves. Imogen and Bel- 
lario, however, are alike in their situations, sentiments, and 
characters. In noting their likenesses, we may join our dis- 
cussion of the plots with that of the characterization of the 
two plays. 

They both serve as pages, in their boys' clothes they wander 
through the woods, they suflFer fatigue,^ they beg for food,' 
they are heart-sick, again and again both wish for death ; 
and throughout all their misfortunes they appeal in every line 
to the most sentimental sympathies of an audience. Their 
tenderness, simplicity, and utter devotion to their lords are 
emphasized over and over again. They are both extremely 
romantic ideahzations of the 'love-lorn maiden' type; and for 
all the finer shading she receives from the meeting with her 
unknown brothers, Imogen does not unquestionably present 
the more exquisite poetry. Dramatically, at least, she says 
nothing quite so sympathetically effective as Bellario's sub- 
mission : 

" Alas, my lord, my life is not a thing 
Worthy your noble thoughts ! 't is not a life, 
'T is but a piece of childhood thrown away." ^ 

Other characters in the two plays offer points of likeness. 
The two kings are almost identically the same, except that the 
king of Calabria receives a certain coarseness from his belief 
in his daughter's guilt, and Cymbeline a certain importance 
from the historical narrative. The queen in Cymbeline and 
Megra in Philaster at least supply the same dramatic require- 
ment for a wicked woman ; and Dion and Pisanio for a faithful 
friend. Philaster and Leonatus have similar situations in the 
love stories and resemble each other not only in the general 
attributes of nobfe heroes but specifically in the fury of their 
jealousy, in their freedom from any sensual motives, and in the 
strongly marked, sentimental character of their love. Cloten 
and Pharamond are both out-and-out boors, both brutish, and 
both braggarts. They fill similar situations, and each one 
serves to supply the comic element in the play. Thus, the 
persons of the main action of each play may be paired together; 
and if the resemblance is apparent to the reader, despite the 
different imaginative development and phrasing given by the 
different poets, it must have been very marked on the stage 
where the two representatives of the same type had similar 
situations, similar action, similar costumes, and very probably 
the same actors.* 

^Cymb., Ill, 6, i, seq. Phil., IV, 4, i, seq. 
'^Cymb., Ill, 6, 45, seq. Phil., IV, 3, 8, seq. 
^Phil., V. 2, 14-17. 
* Both plays were acted by the King's men. 

155 



The general similarit}^ of characters, situations, and senti- 
ments, and even some slight verbal similarities may be further 
seen by comparing the following parallel passages. First, take 
the opening sixty or seventy lines of each play. Second, com- 
pare Arethusa's speech at the end of act III : 

" Peace guide thee ! Thou hast overthrown me once ; " etc. 
with Imogen's speech on Leonatus' falseness: 

" True honest men being heard, like false iEneas," etc.^ 
Third, compare Posthumus' soliloquy, beginning: 

" O, vengeance, vengeance ! " -^ 
with Philaster's, 

" Now you may take that little right I have 
To this poor kingdom," etc. ' 

Or the beginning of Posthumus' soliloquy where he dwells on 
Imogen's apparent chastity with the opening lines of another 
by Philaster: 

" Oh, let all women 
That love black deeds, learn to dissemble here," etc.* 

Fourth, compare Philaster's speech after he is hurt by the 
country fellow*^ with lachimo's after he has been overcome by 
Posthumus.* There is also a similar word play on ' strange ' 
and ' stranger : ' ^ and in connection with the resemblance be- 
tween the idyllic scenes, it may be noted that the name Bel- 
lario in Philaster appears in Cyvibeline as Belarius. 

Between Philaster and Cymbctinc, then, there is a closer 
resemblance than has been indicated between Beaumont and 
Fletcher's and Shakspere's romances. In plot, characters, and 
style, each play possesses the distinguishing traits of its class; 
but in addition to these there are enough specific similarities 
to make it very probable that one play was directly suggested 
by the other. When we remember that both plays w^ere written 
at nearly the same time, for the same company, and by drama- 

iIII, 4, 60-66. 

211, 5, 8, seq. 

8III. 2. 

^Phil., Ill, I. 

^ Phil. IV, 3. " The gods take part against me : could this boor 
Have held me thus else?" 

^Cymb., V, 2, 1-6. 

"^ Megra. " Near me, perhaps : but there 's a lady endures no stran- 
ger ; and to me you appear a very strange fellow." 

Lady. " Methinks he's not so strange; he would quickly be ac- 
quainted." [Philaster, I, i. 

First Lord. " Did you hear of a stranger that's come to court to- 
night? " 

Cloten. " A stranger, and I know not on't ! " 

Second Lord. " He 's a strange fellow himself, and knows it not." 
[Cymbeline, II, i. 

156 



tists who must have been acquainted, the probability approaches 
certainty. 

Our comparison of the two plays thus re-enforces the con- 
clusion already reached that there must have been some direct 
indebtedness of one set of romances to the other. It also 
brings us face to face with the question, which was the debtor 
and which the creditor? 

It is not only practically certain that Philaster was written 
for the King's men while Shakspere was still writing for that 
company; it is also probable that it was written before Cym- 
belme} In that case we could not escape the conclusion that 
Shakspere was indebted to Philaster. 

Suppose for a moment that our chronology was certain instead 
of probable, and let us see what the nature of Shakspere' s 
indebtedness would be. Beaumont and Fletcher had already 
experimented with several plays when they produced Philaster. 
Acted by the King's men at the Globe and at the more fash- 
ionable Blackfriars, the play made an instant and complete 
success. This was due not only to the skill of the authors in 
constructing the plot, in developing telling situations, and in 
writing a verse notably suited to stage action; it was also due 
to many novel features. There had been no play for seven or 
eight years at all resembling Philaster. During that time, at 
least, there had been no character like Bellario, no play con- 
taining such a contrast of tragic and idyllic scenes, or presenting 
such a surprising and ingenious denouement. With all the 
excitement and pathos of a heroic tragedy, it had all the charm 
of a sentimental comedy. After the long succession of gloomy 
tragedies, historical plays with armies and battles, and satirical 
and realistic comedies of London life, this romance filled the 
audience with surprise and delight. 

During the year or two preceding, Shakspere had been 
yvritvagAyitony and Cleopatra, Timon, and Coriolanus. Perhaps 
he was growing tired of tragic and classical themes; perhaps 
his mood was changing and he was beginning to take a more 
cheerful view of life; perhaps Timon and Coriolaiius had not 
achieved great success on the stage — at any rate the success of 
Philaster aroused his interest. He may have known of the 
play before it was acted, and followed its development in the 
hands of his brilliant young friends; he may have watched 
their earlier work with a generous appreciation of their talents. 
As soon as Philaster was acted by his company, he must cer- 
tainly have perceived its dramatic and poetic excellencies, the 
theatrical value of some of its innovations, and the appeal 
which its romantic situations made to the audiences. With 
his usual quickness to take advantage of anything the con- 

^See p. 95, ante. 



temporary drama offered, he at once forsook the themes with 
which he had been dealing for some seven years and started 
to write a play in friendly rivalry of Pliilaster. Possibly he 
already had the historical story of Cymbeline partially com- 
posed; to this he added other stories andmany situations which 
were like those in Philaster. He made his yjlaj' tragic in many 
of its circumstances and, recognizing the effectiveness of Beau- 
mont and Fletcher's use of a happy ending, he labored especially 
over a happy denouement. He introduced idyllic scenes and 
developed them more fully than had Beaumont and Fletcher, 
and he introduced a sentimental heroine that should surpass 
Bellario. Perhaps the sweetness and tenderness of that maiden 
touched Shakspere's feeling and harmonized with his new mood 
of peaceful reconciliation with life; and it may be the clever 
boy-actor who had made a success in Bellario wanted a similar 
part. If so, the task proved a congenial one to Shakvspere. 
The part of Imogen seems to have been created with freer 
fancy and more spontaneous expression than the rest of the 
play. He recalled the women of his earlier comedies, Julia, 
Hero, Rosalind, Helena, and Viola, but he also had in mind 
the traits of Beaumont and Fletcher's heroines. In the case 
of some of the other characters, in the new structural experi- 
ment of the denouement, and in the versification, he worked 
with much less spontaneity and with apparent effort. In fact, 
however much he was moved by thoughts of reconciliation, 
gentleness, and peace, he was also striving to make a play 
which should equal in theatrical effectiveness the recent success 
gained by the skill and innovation of Beaumont and Fletcher. 
Seeking the same end as they did, he used similar means. 
When completed, however, Cymbelme did not owe a very large 
share of its total effect to Philaster. Shakspere was in posses- 
sion of all the dramatic ma.stery which he had learned in twenty 
years' experience. Whatever changes he made in methods of 
con.struction, characterization, or versification, were directed 
by his own experience. Whatever hints or suggestions he 
received from Beaumont and Fletcher for situations or traits of 
character were colored by the plots and people of his own plays 
and transformed by his genius. But he was trying to produce 
and did produce a play with many of the specific characteristics 
and of the same type as Philaster. 

Some such statement of the influence of Philaster on Cym- 
beli?ie could be adopted if we were certain of our chronology. 
But the evidence for the priority of Philaster is not conclusive, 
and its support cannot be confidently relied on. Leaving aside, 
then, the question of exact date and only premising the fact 
that both plays were written at about the same time, we must 
face the question.s — which is more plau.sible, that Shakspere 
influenced Beaumont and Fletcher or that they influenced 

158 



Shakspere? — which on its face is more likely to be the original, 
Cymbeline or Philaster? 

The question is not which play owes most to other plays, 
but which was the earliest representative of the ' romance ' 
type ? Many situations and characteristics in Philaster show 
the influence of earlier plays, but it represents a type that was 
new. Beaumont and Fletcher were new writers for the stage; 
it is one of the earliest of their notable plays; it was followed 
immediately by five romances of the same style in plot and 
characters; it possesses all the important traits and is one of 
the most masterly plays of the class. It presents traits of 
characterization, style, and plot which mark Fletcher's work 
for the next twenty years. All these facts create a strong 
presumption that Philaster was the original. 

We began this investigation with the premise that Shakspere 
was as eager as any Elizabethan dramatist for stage success, 
that he was as likely as any to be influenced by current fashions 
and the practice of his contemporaries. At every point we 
have found definite indications that he was striving for stage- 
effectiveness and no evidence which would make his imitation 
of Philaster seem unplausible. Apart from his relation to 
Beaumont and Fletcher, our study has revealed several results 
which illustrate his adaptability to theatrical conditions. The 
fact that he abandoned romantic comedy for tragedy at the time 
other dramatists were turning away from romance is significant; 
and his plays from 1601 to 1609, even on the briefest consider- 
ation, reveal an evident observance of current forms and fashions. 
His collaboration with Fletcher bears further testimony to his 
subservience to theatrical conditions. It might reasonably be 
held to justify the inference that he recognized in Fletcher the 
dramatist best able to satisfy the stage-demand of the day. 
At all events, Henry VI/I and the Two Noble Ki7iS7nen do not 
indicate that Fletcher was an imitator of Shakspere; they do 
indicate that if Shakspere in his late period was influenced by 
any contemporary dramatist, Fletcher was the man. 

We also started with a suggestion that there was an a priori 
likelihood that Shakspere would prove on careful investigation 
an adapter rather than an inventor of dramatic forms. Since 
this investigation was undertaken, that hypothesis has received 
a very striking confirmation in Mr. Sidney Lee's masterly 
discussion of the sonnets. Of all Shakspere' s work they have 
generally been regarded the most expressive of his personal 
opinions and experiences. Mr. Lee has shovv^n that they were 
undoubtedly indebted to preceding sonnet series, and that in 
them Shakspere frankly adopted many of the conventions and 
methods of a fashionable literary form. Our examination of 
his indebtedness to the court masques has shown him in a 
similar way borrowing and imitating many features of a fash- 
ionable dramatic form. 

159 



We may, indeed, safely assert that Shakspere almost never 
invented dramatic types. In his earliest plays he was a ver- 
satile imitator of current forms, and in his later work he was 
constantly adapting dramatic types used by other men. He 
wrote chronicle-histories, romantic and sentimental comedies, 
farcical comedies of manners, tragedies based on classical his- 
tory, a tragedy of blood- revenge. In none of these cases did 
he originate a dramatic type or first introduce one on the 
Elizabethan stage; in all these cases he was to a large extent 
an adapter and transformer. Cymbcline differs markedly from 
any play he had previously written; and its differences prove 
to be traits similar to those characteristic of the Beaumont- 
Fletcher romances. These facts create a strong presumption 
that Cymbcline was the copy. 

Still further we must remember the well-attested success of 
Philaster and its manifest spontaneity. No play of its day was 
more warmly praised by its contemporaries; no play by its 
authors seems more completely their own, more characteristic 
of their temperaments and methods. Cymbcline, on the con- 
trary, has no such evidence of success as Romeo and Juliet, 
Hamlet, or the Tempest, nor has it a tithe of their spontaneity. 
In the opinion of most critics, it shows decided creative effort. 
It was an experiment in new fields made at the close of his 
career by a consummate adapter, and made with evident effort. 
These considerations surely add to the probability that Beau- 
mont and Fletcher were the inventors and Shakspere the 
adapter. 

The final deci.sion must hinge on such considerations as these. 
If we leave aside the direct evidence in regard to the dates, 
all our knowledge of the authors of the two plays and of the 
dramatic conditions of the time seem to me to point to the 
conclusion that in some such way as has been hypothetically 
described, Philaster influenced Cymbeline. 



1 60 



CHAPTER X. 

A Winter's Tale and the Tempest. 

A Wintfr's Tale and The Tempest do not show so close a 
relation as Cymbeline to the Beaumont-Fletcher romantic type. 
Neither seems to have been suggested by any one play as 
Cymbeline by Philaster; they are both plays, however, which 
link themselves with Cymbeline in separation from the rest of 
Shakspere's work and which possess, as has already been in- 
dicated, many of the characteristics of the Beaumont-Fletcher 
romances. Which of the two was written first is hardly de- 
terminable, but there is general agreement that they both 
succeeded Cymbeline. If this order is the true one; there is no 
reason for expecting traces of anything like direct imitation 
to be longer prominent. We may rather expect to find 
Shakspere transforming the experimental form of Cymbeline 
into something indisputably his own. We may, however, ex- 
pect to find evidences of the Beaumont-Fletcher methods and 
fashions and of Shakspere's development of them. At the 
risk of repetition, we will consider some of the ways in which 
the two plays show Shakspere's development of the Beaumont- 
Fletcher romance, which he had first tried in Cymbeline. 

The Winter' s Tale gives prominence to a sentimental love 
story and has an involved plot with decided contrasts of tragic 
and idyllic incidents. The stories of Leontes' jealousy and 
fury and of the apparent deaths of Hermione and Perdita oc- 
cupy the whole of the first three acts. Instead of weaving 
the idyllic scenes and the sentimental love story into the main 
plot, Shakspere added them in an almost separate play which 
occupies the whole of the fourth act. It goes without saying 
that he has treated this idyllic element with complete origin- 
ality, and with a reality which Beaumont and Fletcher never 
approached. This fourth act is, indeed, about the only part of 
the romances which has an atmosphere of reality. In the fifth 
act, the two distinct plays are united with due regard for an 
unexpected and effective denouement. 

The use of a happy ending, it will be remembered, is a 
change from Greene's novel. This change and the carefully 
prepared denouement are general traits of the romances; and 
so, too, is the construction of the main plot. It is notably a 
succession of situations. Sometimes, indeed, situations suc- 
ceed each other with a rapidity which destroys all effect of 

i6i 



plausibility, however well it may favor varied and violent 
action. For example, the first act opens conventionally with 
a conversation between some gentlemeti of the court explaining 
the circumstances of the succeeding action. Then follows the 
lively dialogue in which Hermione succeeds in persuading 
Polixenes to lengthen his visit; ^ Leontes, immediately aroused 
to jealousy, is left to soliloquize and to talk with the child 
Mamillius;"^ Hermione and Polixenes return and add a little 
fresh fuel to his fire; as they retire again, he breaks out in the 
exceedingly vile and violent speech, beginning: 

" Gone already, 
Inch deep, knee deep, o'er head and ears a fork'd one! "^ 

There is some further accentuation by Mamillius' prattle; then 
comes the dialogue with Camillo, whose belief in Hermione's 
innocence furnishes a good acting contrast with the king's 
impatient jealousy, and who is finally persuaded to agree to 
poison Polixenes; then Camillo has a soliloquy, one phrase 
of which seems almost an echo from Beaumont and Fletcher: 

" If I could find example 
Of thousands that had struck annointed kings 
And flourished after," etc.* 

Polixines next enters: Camillo explains the circumstances to 
him, and they agree to flee. 

Thus in 450 lines, in addition to all the necessary expository 
matter, Shakspere has contrived to bring in seven or eight dis- 
tinct situations. By means of these situations Leontes' jealousy 
is given its origin and development, and the Polixenes-Florizel 
story is well introduced. To see how great is the change from 
the old methods of construction we have only to recur again 
to the treatment of Othello's jealousy. 

In dramatizing Greene's old and popular romance, Shak- 
spere, after the fashion of Beaumont and Fletcher, created a 
play distinguished by its effective situations and the construc- 
tive feat of its remarkable denouement. How great the de- 
parture is from his earlier methods may be seen by comparing 
the Winter's Tale with Pericles (1607-8?) a play that seems to 
many to be connected with the romances.^ There Shakspere 
was also dramatizing an old and popular story and one similar 
to the story of the IVifiler's Tale, but he gave it a form that 
is primitively undramatic and in most striking contrast with 
the constructive ingenuity of the later play. 

Of the fourth act, one dislikes to say anything which may 
even appear to indicate a failure to appreciate its spontaneity: 
but even here Shakspere is only giving an original development 

^I, 2, 1-108. *I, 2, 357. 

"I, 2, 108-146. ^See Appendix. 

*I, 2, 185, seq. 

162 



to the inevitable id}-!. We have already seen that the business 
of a girl gathering flowers in March had been seen on the stage 
before Shakspere was born.^ The business of shepherds and 
shepherdesses was also an old and popular theatrical convention, 
and the dance of satyrs was an entertainment probably directly 
borrowed from a court masque. The reality given to these 
conventions and to the equally conventional love story is Shak- 
spere's own, and is secured largely by the introduction of comic 
characters from real life. 

Of the characters of the play; we have already considered 
many. It may be added that Perdita's vitality arises rather 
from that atmosphere of real life in the country scene than 
from anything individual in her own lines. The style, too, 
structurally considered, is the same as that of Cymbeline; and 
the various devices for stage effect have already been noticed. 

The Wmter' s Tale, then, seems in its main traits a develop- 
ment from the same type as Cymbeline. Its most marked dis- 
tinction from the imitative character of that play is found in 
the very vital connection established between the sentimental 
love story and the comic elements of real life. In the nature 
of the plot, in its mixture of tragic and idyllic, in ingeniously 
dramatic situations and denouement, in weakened characteriza- 
tion, and in a more dramatic style, the play belongs to the 
romance type of Beaumont and Fletcher. 

The Tempest at first sight seems to differ much more than 
the Wmler's Tale from a romance like Cymbeline. This is 
perhaps mainly due to the fact that we always think of it 
as a poem and never as a play. More than any other of 
Shakspere' s plays, it seems to embody a conscious effort at the 
expression of a definite artistic mood. The beauty of its ideal- 
ized picture of life, the serenity of its philosophy, the charm 
of its verse make it a poem to be treasured and pondered over 
and loved. To understand, however, just what its effect must 
have been on the Elizabethan stage, we must minimize the 
effect of its poetry and recall some elements of the play which 
are no longer salient. We must analyze not the aesthetic mood 
which it creates in us but the structure of the pla}^ itself. 

A few truisms may again be repeated. The play was not 
printed until Shakspere' s plays were collected long after his 
death: it was written for and acted on the stage where it was 
evidently popular. While Shakspere's imagination has filled 
it with permanent beauty and truth, he could not have written 
it without having in mind its stage-effectiveness. If we look, 
then, at the qualities which distinguish it as a stage play, we 
find many indications of current dramatic fashions and many 
points of resemblance to the general type of romances. 

^See p. 4, ante. 

163 



For the plot there is, as usual, a story of sentimental love 
and a correlated plot of intrigue and murder.^ We have only 
to see the play on the stage to realize that the story of the 
bewildered courtiers (however uninteresting to modern taste) 
is the best acting part of the play. That story, probably from 
some Italian source, forms the basis of the plot. As Mr. Wen- 
dell has shown, ^ Shakspere has elaborated the denouement into 
five acts. The play is simply the expanded fifth act of a tragi- 
comedy — a surprising, romantic denouement. 

This is the distinguishing feature of the construction, but 
there are many other evidences that Shakspere was striving 
for stage effect. Perhaps for this reason he followed the unities 
of time and place, for whose observance Beaumont had praised 
Jonson. Moreover, he added to the tragic-idyllic story, inci- 
dents, characters, and scenes, almost surely suggested by tales 
of a voyage to the new world which were just then exciting 
general interest. The enchanted island, the magic of Prospero, 
the monster Caliban, and the fairy Ariel must certainly have 
been novel and interesting to Elizabethan audiences. As in 
the Winter' s Tale, he also gained stage-effectiveness and les- 
sened the artificiality of the idyllic element by introducing 
comic personages after the style of those in his early comedies. 
He also used some of the stage devices which he had earlier 
used in the Midsummer Night's Dream. 

Most notable, however, of all the devices for stage effect, 
was the pageantry borrowed from the court masques. We 
have already seen that the Tempest was in part a stage pageant, 
definitely constructed on the style of those popular entertain- 
ments. In this respect it re.sembles Beaumont and Fletcher's 
Four Plays in One, which also combines romantic situations with 
masque-like pageants. In borrowing from the ma.sques Shak- 
spere was making use of a very popular fashion. 

Most of the characters, as we have noted, are developments- 
of the conventionalized types. Miranda says little or nothing- 
which has a trace of direct individualized characterization. 
The speech which comes the nearest to this, her proposal to 
Ferdinand, sounds very much like one of Beaumont and 
Fletcher's heroines. 

" Wherefore weep you ? 
At mine unworthiness, that dare not offer 
What I desire to give ; and much less take 
What I shall die to -want. But this is trifling; 
And all the more it seeks to hide itself, 
The bigger bulk it shows. Hence, bashful cunning ! 
And prompt me, plain and holy innocence ! 
I am your wife, if you will marry me; 
If not, I '11 die your maid : to be your fellow 



^Note also Caliban's attempted rape of Miranda. 
' William Shakspere, pp. 317-318. 



164 



You may deny me ; but I '11 be your servant, 
Whether j'ou will or no."^ 

To-day the audience laughs as Miss Ada Rehan speaks the 
lines. The}"- have no individual vitality; and we are not used 
to the Beaumont-Fletcher idyl.^ 

The style of the Tempest shows far more mastery than that 
of the two other romances; but, for all its greater beauty, it is 
structurally the same. From the nature of the play, some- 
thing of a return to the old lyrical structure might be expected, 
but there are no indications of this. One or two examples 
will indicate that the disjointed, parenthetical structure of 
Cymbeline is retained but used with greater skill. For an ex- 
ample of its use in passages involving intense action, take the 
speeches of Antonio.'^ For its use in narrative take Prospero's 
account of his misfortunes,* or his account of Caliban's plot.^ 
To see how far this structure had become a matter of habit 
even in set declamations, take Prospero's speech at the begin- 
ning of the last act,*' or Ariel's speech to the courtiers.'' 

In style, therefore, as well as in characters and plot, the 
Tempest resembles the other romances. In style, however, 
and in all other elements, the differences are not less notable 
than the resemblances. The characteristics of the romances 
of Beaumont and Fletcher which appear in Cymbeline, reappear 
in the Tempest, but altered and transformed. While Cymbeline 
seems an experiment suggested by Philaster, the Tempest is a 
development of the 'romance' type, which is in the highest 
degree masterly and original. Perhaps there is no better way 
of appreciating its supreme art than by recalling some steps in 
its creation. We can best estimate Shakspere's accomplish- 
ment by remembering with what materials and conditions he 
began. 

Our analysis has shown that his transformation of the ro- 

iIII, I, 76-85. 

2 The resemblance between Ariel and the Satyr in Fletcher's Faithful 
Shepherdess has frequently been noticed. Not only is there a close 
verbal resemblance between some of their lines ; both have traits in 
common, and each is the servant and nimble messenger of a superior 
being. Fletcher's Satyr has also many points of similarity to the 
faun-like satyrs and ' wild-men ' of the early English pastoral enter- 
tainments; particularly to the satyr in Ben Jonson's Complaint oj 
Satyrs against Nymphs (1603). There the satyr is a singer, a piper, 
a merry fellow, a companion of the fairies, and also serves as a mes- 
senger and sort of chorus. Possibly Shakspere's Ariel is a develop- 
ment of the same type, which may have received some suggestions 
from the theatrical part of Fletcher's Satyr. See Modern Language 
Notes, April, 1899 ; the Pastoral Element in the English Drama. 

^11, I, 226-290. 

*I, 2, 106-188. 

^V, I, 268, seq. 

^Note particularly V, i, 61, seq. 

nil, 3, 60-82. 

165 



mantic type involves much besides a more masterly expression 
of the artistic impulses which seem to have dominated his 
latest period. He was dealing as in the other romances with 
an idyllic love story and a counterplot of tragic possibilities, 
and he was trying to treat both with ingenuity and novelty. 
He found suggestions for much new and sensational matter in 
the reports of a recent voyage. He undertook a constructive 
feat in handling the denouement such as he had experi- 
mented upon in Cymbeline, and for some reason he chose strictly 
to observe the unities. He borrowed many devices, conven- 
tions, and situations from earlier plays, and he constructed a 
stage pageant on the style of the court masques. In all these 
respects he was aiming to make his play eifective on the stage, 
and in some particulars he was following methods and fashions 
used by Beaumont and Fletcher. Yet all his varied aims are 
perfectly harmonized in the final result. The Italian story 
finds its true home in the Bermudas, and marvellous adventures 
are told with strict adherence to Aristotle's laws. The love of 
a maiden, the old plot of villainous intrigue, the superb wisdom 
of Prospero, all find one haven through "calm seas, auspicious 
gales." The drunken clowns, the Italian courtiers, the strange 
monster, and the ' zephyr-like ' Ariel play their parts with 
antick dancers such as Shakspere had seen in the court masques 
at Whitehall. Out of such varied driftwood rose Shakspere' s 
enchanted island. 



1 66 



chapter xi. 
Conclusion. 

A brief glance at our conclusions will serve for a recapitula- 
tion. The conjectural nature of some of these has often led 
us to avoid using one probable conclusion in support of another; 
taken together, however, their cumulative effect must be con- 
sidered. 

In the first place, an examination of the chronologj' of 
Shakspere's romances and Beaumont and Fletcher's plays 
showed that some of the latter certainly preceded the former, 
and that six of the Beaumont-Fletcher romances were probably 
written by the time Shakspere had produced three. Philaster 
seemed probably earlier than Cymbeline. An examination 
of the stage history of the period indicated that mutual in- 
fluence between Shakspere and the 3'ounger dramatists was 
probable from the fact that they were all writing plays for the 
King's men at the same time. The evidence that Shakspere 
and Fletcher collaborated on two or three plays made this 
probability almost a certainty. Our study of the chronology 
and stage history of the plays discovered no evidence at any 
point contradictory to the hypothesis that Shakspere was in- 
fluenced by Beaumont and Fletcher, made plain the likelihood 
of some mutual influence between them, and on the whole 
indicated that the first contributions of Beaumont and Fletcher 
to heroic romance preceded Shakspere's. 

An examination of all the plays acted 1601-1611 revealed a 
surprising paucity of plays which could be classed with either 
set of romances and a still more significant absence of experi- 
menting with romantic material. In the light of the work of 
other dramatists, it became clear that the romances were neither 
the development of current forms nor the results of manifest 
tendencies in the drama, but that they must have been an un- 
expected departure largely due to the innovation of either 
Beaumont and Fletcher or Shakspere. In showing the inde- 
pendence of Beaumont and Fletcher's revival of romance from 
current influence and in emphasizing the significance of Shak- 
spere's abrupt change from tragedy to romance, our examina- 
tion presented further indications that Beaumont and Fletcher 
were the innovators. 

A study of the six romances by Beaumont and Fletcher 
produced before the end of 161 1 demonstrated that they con- 

167 



stituted a new and distinct type of drama. A similar study of 
the three plays by Shakspere showed that they constituted a 
type of drama decidedly different from the rest of his work. 
Both types of romances showed a revival of romantic material, 
a use of new dramatic methods, and an effort to secure varied 
and lively action on the stage with some added spectacular 
eflfects. They resembled each other so closely in all their dis- 
tinctive traits that it seemed impossible that they could have 
been produced independently of each other. While some 
of these resemblances seemed due to current conditions and 
common purposes, we concluded that one set of romances was 
indebted to the other for the defining traits of the type. And 
there were not lacking further indications that Shakspere was 
the debtor. 

An examination of Philaster and Cymbeline, each an early 
representative of either type and each wTitten for the King's 
men before the fall of 1610, revealed further specific similarities 
which made it almost certain that one influenced the other. 
Philaster appeared to have been the earlier of the two ; but 
apart from considerations of dates, the general character of the 
plays indicated that Philaster was the original. This was 
made still more probable by consideration of the habits and 
positions of the authors themselves. There seemed good ground 
for the supposition that Shakspere, desirous of producing a 
play which should have the same effect on the stage as Philaster, 
produced in Cymbeline a play of the same type and of many 
of the same specific characteristics. 

It was admitted that this conclusion would be accepted only 
by those who believe that Shakspere wrote plays with a keen 
eye for theatrical success, and that he was as ready as any of 
his fellow-dramatists to follow current fashions and to receive 
suggestions from his contemporaries. This investigation was 
based on the premise that such a view is justified by a study 
of the recognized facts of his career, and on the a priori 
probability^ that further investigation might be expected to 
substantiate and enlarge the opinion that he was constantly 
indebted to his fellow-dramatists. Apart from the considera- 
tion of his relation to Beaumont and Fletcher, many specific 
results of our investigation increase our confidence that Shak- 
spere was likely to have been the adapter. 

In the romances which followed Cymbeline, Shakspere ap- 
peared to have so far mastered the romantic type that evidences 
of imitation became slight, and the plays seemed his by birth 
rather than by adoption. Instead of degenerating, as it did in 
Beaumont and Fletcher, into a pretty distinctly conventional- 
ized form, the romance type developed under his genius into 
the Winter' s Tale and the Tempest. Even in these plays he 
seemed still to be using the methods he had adopted in Cym- 

168 



beline and still to be answering the same theatrical demand 
which Beaumont and Fletcher had first supplied. 

In analyzing Shakspere's obligations to their romances, we 
have noted many varieties from direct imitation in Cymbeline 
to original tranformation in the Tempest. Sometimes there is 
no indication of indebtedness; he is merely following the same 
fashion which they did or writing with the same purpose. 
Sometimes he seems to have adopted a method or a type of 
character which they had used successfully, sometimes to have 
tried to outdo them at their own game. In no case was he 
merely adopting or imitating, he always adapted and usually 
transformed what he borrowed; but in many details in Cym- 
beline, and generally in the material of his plots, his construc- 
tive feats, and his characterization, Shakspere appears to have 
been working either in conscious imitation or conscious rivalry 
of the younger dramatists. 

On the whole the evidence seems sufiicient to establish the 
probability of our two main hypotheses: first, that Shakspere's 
change from tragedies to romances is to be accounted for by 
the contemporaneous production of the Beaumont- Fletcher 
romances; and second, that these latter definitely influenced 
Cym.beline , a Wmter's Tale, and the Tempest. 

Shakspere's romances thus aiford another illustration of the 
way in which his genius worked, transforming dramatic forms 
which other men had invented into vital creations of his own. 
They afford, too, another evidence of the great influence of 
Beaumont and Fletcher on the history of English drama, and 
they add greatly to the indebtedness we owe to the astonishing 
invention and poetic genius of those two dramatists. 



169 



APPENDIX. Pericles. 

Pericles is thought by many to resemble the three romances 
and to bear to them a relation similar to that borne by the 
early to the great comedies. This possible relation to the 
romances, rather than questions of date and authorship, is the 
problem before us. We must examine what evidence there is 
that in Pericles Shakspere was experimenting with the romance 
type and consider what bearing such evidence has on our con- 
clusion that his romances were largely influenced by those of 
Beaumont and Fletcher. 

Questions concerning date and authorship are important for 
our purpose, but they are complicated by so many difficulties 
that we can only arrive at solutions which are extremely con- 
jectural. We must therefore be content with noting the con- 
jectures that seem to afford the safest hypotheses and then pass 
on to the main problem. 

Pericles was entered S. R. May 20, 1608, for Edward Blount, 
and was published by Henry Gosson in 1609. This first quarto 
states that the play was ' ' by William Shakespeare ' ' and had 
" been divers and sundry times acted by his Majesty's Servants 
at the Globe, on the Bankside. " Pericles was not included in 
the first or second folio, but was added with six other plays to 
the third folio of 1663. It appeared in five different quartos 
before the end of 1630. 

Whether the 1608 entry refers to the 1609 quarto or not, and 
how the publisher of the quarto got hold of the play, are de- 
bated questions. There is general agreement that The Pain- 
full Adventures of Pericles, Prince of Tyre, by George Wilkins 
(i6o8j, appeared after the play had been acted; but even this 
conclusion is open to doubt. ^ The latest limit for the date is 
fixed by the quarto, 1609; and, while there is no certainty that 
the play in some form may not have been acted earlier, verse 
tests indicate that Shakspere's part was written about 1608. 

In thus accepting 1608 as the conjectural date we have been 
forced to rely on the hypothesis that the " Marina Story " ^ is 
wholly Shakspere's. At least that is in part surely his and 

^ There is probably no other case in Elizabethan drama where a novel 
was made out of a play as it is supposed was done by Wilkins. If he 
had a share in the play, such a proceeding seems the more surprising. 

2 The last three acts, with possible exception of scenes 2, 5 and 6 in 
Act IV. 

171 



is in a style distinct from the rest of the play. Some critics/ 
however, believe that he wrote the entire play; some believe 
that his share was very small ;'^ and there are all shades of 
opinion as to his possible collaborators. The first two acts are 
assigned by some to Wilkins,' and the offensive scenes in Act 
IV to Rowley/ While there is little more than conjecture in 
such assignments, we are fairly safe in saying that three dis- 
tinct styles are discernible, that the first two acts are not by 
Shakspere, and that only the Marina story can be with any 
certainty assigned to him.^ 

Working on these hypotheses, it seems likely that Shakspere 
did not work directly in collaboration with the other author or 
authors. Unlike his shares in //ifw^j F///and the Tivo Noble 
Kins7nen Shakspere' s share appears quite distinct from the 
rest of the play.® Neither does it seem probable that he had 
much to do in planning the plaj^ or in retouching the first two 
acts. Nevertheless, Pericles was acted by Shakspere's com- 
pany and published with his name, and he must to some extent 
be held responsible for its final form. In examining it, how- 
ever, as a play of his, we are safest in keeping pretty closely 
to the Marina part. 

Remembering that Shakspere's share in the play and its date 
are very uncertain, we may return to our main problem, its 
relation to the romances. If the play was as late as 1608, there 
is a pos.sibility of Beaumont and Fletcher's influence just as 
in the romances. If Pericles is a play of the same type as the 
romances, and if Shakspere's part is a foreca.st of his later work, 
these facts are of importance on the general relationship be- 
tween the Beaumont-Fletcher and the Shaksperean romances. 
We must consider to what extent Pericles was a forecast of the 
romances and to what extent it possesses traits of the two 
contemporary series of romances. 

The plot is taken from Laurence Twine's Pattertie of Pain- 
full Adventures and Gower's Coyifcssio A^naniis. A sentimental 
love story appears, but is not given the prominent place that 
similar stories receive in each of the three romances and also 
in each of the Beaumont-Fletcher romances. The plot is, 
however, like those of the romances and particularly like that 

^C/. Introduction to ike Bankside Shakespeare, Vol. XIV. New 
York, 1891, bv Appleton Morgan. 

2See H. P. Outlifies I, p. 205. 

^ * See the Transactions of the New Shakspere Society for 1874, pp. 
130, 253, and also for 1880-86, p. 323, for articles by Mr. Fleay and Mr. 
Boyle. 

^ The offensive scenes (2, 5 and 6) in Act IV are more closely connected 
with the Shaksperean part than the first two acts; are in prose and 
less distinguishable in style; and on the whole of more doubtfully 
non-Shaksperean authorship. 

*It is especially distinct from Wilkins' part, Acts i and 2. 

172 



of the Winter's Tale in dealing with a long series of tragic 
events leading to a happy ending. It presents, too, a similar 
variety of emotional effects and a contrast of tragic and idyllic 
elements ; the idyllic elements, however, which we have 
found highly developed in all Shakspere's and Beaumont and 
Fletcher's romances, do not receive a similar development in 
Pericles. 

Considered in detail, the plot contains incidents, common 
enough in Elizabethan literature, which Shakspere had pre- 
viously used and which he used again in later plays. Thus the 
shipwTeck, which had been used in the Comedy of Errors and 
Twelfth Night, appears later in the Tempest ; -^ and the reunion of 
Pericles and Thaisa both recalls that of ^geon and Amelia 
in the Comedy of Errors and anticipates that of Leontes and 
Hermione in a Winter'' s Tale. The story of Marina is something 
like that of Perdita; but in the extraordinary emphasis placed 
on the trial of her chastity, it is more like the story of Isa- 
bella in Measure for Measure. 

In Pericles, then, Shakspere chose to dramatize an old story 
which has some general and some detailed resemblances to the 
material he later used in the romances. There is, however, 
nothing of the invention and ingenuity of the romances and 
little of their emphasis of the love story and idyllic element. 
In general character the plot is not unlike those of the earlier 
comedies, and the leading motive of the Marina story is similar 
to that in Measure for Measure. 

In construction, Pericles is hardly a play at all. It is aston- 
ishingly undramatic. The story is largely told by the rhymed 
narrative of the choruses or presented in the dumb shows. 
There is no effort made to secure effective dramatic situations, 
and no pains are taken with the denouement. The final happy 
reconciliation has none of the dramatic importance that it has 
in the Winter s Tale ; it is merely an explanation. In all the 
characteristics of dramatic construction, the most marked con- 
trast exists between Pericles and the romances either of Shak- 
spere or Beaumont and Fletcher. 

Pericles, indeed, is not only altogether unlike the romances 
of varied dramatic situations and intense, heightened denoue- 
ments: it is so utterl}' lacking in dramatic construction that 
one wonders that it could have been written as late as 1608. 
Plays of this archaic style, however, were not uncommon even 
at so late a date. In 1 607 the Travels of the Three English 
Brothers'^ was brought out by the Queen's men. The play 
dealt with the wonderful adventures of the three Shirleys in 

iSee Pericles III, i; C. ofE., I, i, 63, seq. ; T. N., I., 2 ; Tempest, I, i. 

2 See Chr. II, p. 276. Wilkins, who is thought to have had a share 
in Pericles, had a share in the Three Brothers. For an account of 
similar plays, see p. 98, ante. 



Russia, Turkey and Persia and the marriage of one of them 
to the Sophy's daughter. Its construction is decidedly like 
that of Pericles : dumb shows, narrative choruses, much para- 
ding, and no real dramatic action. It is repeatedly ridiculed in 
the Knight of the Btirning Pestle, and evidently appealed to 
the same vulgar taste that contemporary references show Pericles^ 
greatly delighted. We cannot be sure that the construction of 
Pericles was by Shakspere; but even in the Marina story the 
same archaic methods are adhered to and there is no attempt 
to secure dramatic effectiveness. 

In construction, then, the plot of Pericles has no resemblance 
to those of the three romances. So far from using any of the 
innovations of Beaumont and Fletcher, Shakspere seems to 
have returned to the methods then recognized as primitive and 
ridiculous hut which still aroused the delight of the vulgar. 

The characters of the play have little importance except 
Marina. By some she is thought to anticipate the heroines of 
the romances. The similarity of her situation to Perdita's has 
been noticed, and she certainly resembles the later heroines 
more than she does the women of the preceding tragedies. 
Sentimental love, however, the dominant characteristic of 
Imogen, Perdita, and Miranda as well as of the Beaumont- 
Fletcher heroines, receives very slight exploitation in Marina. 
Of course she has a lover and marries him after the fashion of 
all heroines, but her utter devotion to him is not the theme of 
her story, nor is it her crowning glory. Shakspere used the 
sentimental lov^e story and heroine as he had used them in the 
early comedies and in AW s Well and Measure for Measure, 
but not as Beaumont and Fletcher used them nor as he used 
them in the later romances. 

Marina appears mainly as a pure girl who in the most trying 
circumstances maintains her chastity. The same motive also 
appears in Imogen and Isabella. In Imogen it receives a treat- 
ment after the style of Beaumont and Fletcher and quite unlike 
that in Pericles. In Isabella, however, it receives a treatment 
very similar to that in Pericles. Her purity is brought into 
contrast with the same loathsome aspects of life; her chastity 
endures equally trying circumstances; and its defense involves 
considerable vigorous argument like Marina's. On the whole 
Marina resembles Isabella quite as much as the romance hero- 
ines. She resembles the latter in the nature of the story rather 
than in the treatment of her character. 

The style of Pericles, according to verse tests, takes a place at 
about 1608 in the general development of Shakspere' s versifica- 
tion. It shows nothing of the marked structural change of 
Cymbeliyie which also characterizes the other romances. In 

^ See Centurie of Prayse. 

174 



devices for stage eflfect, it is decidedly archaic with its dumb 
shows and choruses. There is a dance of the knights in armor, 
alone and with their ladies, after the fashion of the masque;^ 
but the pageant of the knights and their devices'^ is after the 
fashion of such exhibitions vsx Jeronymo. 

On analysis, Pericles thus proves to be a play dealing with a 
story similar to those of the romances, but giving this story 
an entirely different treatment. In construction, characteriza- 
tion, style, and general stage effect, it presents none of the 
leading traits of the romance type. It seems to have been one 
of those Elizabethan ' plays of adventures, ' whose character 
and the character of the taste to which it appealed are indicated 
in the title page of the first quarto: "The late and much 
"admired play, called Pericles, Prince of Tyre, with the true 
"relation of the whole Historic, adventures and fortunes of 
"the said Prince: As also the no less strange and worthy 
" accidents, in the Birth and Life of his daughter Mariana." 

A word remains to be said about the artistic mood of Pericles. 
There does not seem to me to be much in the Shaksperean 
part which indicates any definite mood. There is some very 
fine phrasing in the account of the tempest, a subject that 
constantly appealed to Elizabethan rhetoricians; and the choice 
of the Marina story may have some artistic significance. Its 
underlying mood seems to resemble that of Measure for Measure 
as much as that of the Tempest. Those who insist on the 
forgiving serenity of the romances can at best find only slight 
indications of such a mood in Pericles. 

As a precursor of the romances, the most that can be said 
of Pericles is that Shakspere was using material distinct from 
that of his tragedies and resembling in some ways the material 
of the romances; and that his artistic mood may in a similar 
way be conceived to have altered from that of the tragedies 
and to anticipate slightly that of the Tempest. 

Such opinions, however, have little significance in connec- 
tion with our discussion of the romances. Pericles is doubtless 
earlier than Shakspere's romances, but there is no probability 
that it preceded all of Beaumont and Fletcher's. Even if it did, 
the mere fact that Shakspere used an old romantic story is the 
only evidence that he began to experiment with the romantic 
type earlier than did Beaumont and Fletcher. 

About 1608, Phil aster yN2iS acted as well as Pericles ; and two 
more difierent plays can hardly be imagined. They not only 
differ entirely in their methods of construction and their general 
stage effect; they differ as well in their treatment of the senti- 
mental love story, of the heroine's character, and of the happy 
ending. Pericles was a return to archaic methods, Philaster 



III, 3, 98 and 106. 

211, 2. 



175 



was a remarkable dramatic innovation. Probably shortly after 
these two plays, came Cymbcline ; and there can be no doubt 
which play it followed. If Shakspere had already experimented 
with romantic material and in a romantic mood, he had certainly 
not determined the characteristics of a new romantic type. 
If we make all possible allowance for the influence of Pericles 
and of all other plays dealing with romantic stories upon the 
work of Beaumont and Fletcher, the evidence remains unim- 
paired that their type of romance was an innovation and that 
it distinctly influenced Shakspere's romances. Pericles, how- 
ever, seems to me in no appreciable degree a precursor of the 
romances, but rather a return to the old chronological, narra- 
tive dramatization of stories of wonderful adventures, such as 
were popular on the stage even later than 1608. At any rate, 
for our discussion of the relations between the romances of 
Shakspere and of Beaumont and Fletcher, it has either little 
or no significance. 



176 



ERRATA. 

Page 37, Hue 11 ; for period after "side," substitute a comma. 

Page 41, line 6 of the foot-note ; the reference should be to page 31. 

Page 43, line 15; insert a reference to the foot-note after "doors." 

Page 58, line 5; "the two allusions"— omit "the." 

Page 74; Fleay's identification of the "miraculous maid" is correct. 
The Fasting of a Maiden of Confolens was published in 1604, with 
introductory verses by Dekker. 

Pages 91 and 93 ; for Lover's Progress, read Lovers' Progress. 

Page 107, foot-note; the Wit of a IVomafi, probably acted 1600-1604, 
is another play which I have not seen. 

Page 112, line 4 ; read " as that of Leontes." 

Page 125, line 23 ; for "thown," read "thrown." 



11.19- 



:>, ^ 190V 



. -, ;., V 



THE INFLUENCE OF BEAUMONT 
AND FLETCHER ON SHAKSPERE 



ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE, Ph. D. 

Associate Professor of English, Western Reserve University 



WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS. 

Press of Oliver B. Wood 

1901 



MAR. 2? 1901 

COPtfiJljMT ENTR' 

CLASS <\oXXo. N* 
COPY B. 



Copyright. 1901, 
By Ashlry H. Thorndixe. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



